Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Women's Land Army

Sir Richard Wells: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of land girls in Bedfordshire; and will he give instructions that girls who wish to serve in the Land Army should be permitted to do so and not directed to other forms of National Service?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Having regard to other even more urgent requirements in certain areas, I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend asks, but it is my policy to allow freedom of choice to suitable applicants to join the Women's Land Army wherever this is possible.

Sir R. Wells: Is the Minister aware that in Bedfordshire we require about 2,000 land girls to help us with our harvest this year?

Mr. Bevin: I know the demand is very heavy, but I do not know the exact number required.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour whether facilities under the further education scheme will be available to members of the Women's Land Army?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Although the scheme is primarily intended for persons demobilised from His Majesty's Armed Forces and their Auxiliary and Nursing Services, together with the Merchant Navy, Police Auxiliaries, full-time Civil Defence and Civil Nursing Reserve, persons who have served in other forms of war work, including the Women's Land Army, will be eligible for consideration.

Hospitals (Domestic Workers)

Mr. Arthur Hollins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position

to make a further statement on the supply of female domestic labour to the hospitals?

Mr. Bevin: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 18th February, 1943, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Industrial Disputes (Work Stoppages)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost in industry through strikes and disputes for the first three months of this year?

Mr. Bevin: The aggregate number of working days lost in stoppages of work due to industrial disputes during the first two months of this year, so far as reported to my Department, is estimated to have been about 78,000. Corresponding figures for March are not yet available, but will be given in the April issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," to be published towards the end of this month.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he took to enforce the special powers granted to him under the Strikes Act with regard to the 1,527,000 working days lost in 1942?

Mr. Bevin: Prosecutions are instituted in all suitable cases, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that indiscriminate recourse to this remedy would not be likely to be effective. I cannot condemn too strongly any attempt to settle disputes in wartime by a strike instead of using the proper negotiating machinery, but I would point out that the number of working days lost in 1942, though higher than in 1941, was far below that experienced in any of the years of the last war.

Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is taking every possible step not only by means of his statutory powers, but also by persuasion, to try and get a 100 per cent. war effort throughout the country?

Mr. Bevin: I think my record since I have been in office answers that.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the stupidity of employers as well on some occasions?

Mr. George Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend bring in an Order to compel Members to attend in this House instead of elsewhere?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent award to the engineering industry in this country has left marine engineers seething with discontent?

Youths (Underground Work)

Mr. Shin well: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Samuel Naylor, of South Hetton, Durham, whose age is 18 years, was ordered by the National Service Officer to work below ground; that the boy has expressed a horror of working underground, preferring to join the Navy or do anything rather than obey the instructions issued to him; that, in view of his refusal, he was sentenced to three months imprisonment; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will instruct the National Service officer in this and similar cases to use greater discretion before seeking to force anyone to engage in work underground to which they have a strong objection?

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Naylor, whose age according to my information is 19 years, appealed against a direction to work underground given at the request of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the Appeal Board upheld the direction. In view of the grounds he gave for his refusal a special medical examination was arranged, as a result of which he was pronounced fit for underground work. There is no basis for suggesting that the National Service officer did not exercise proper discretion. In view, however, of the peculiar difficulty which cases of this type sometimes present, I am considering with my right hon. Friend whether any further precautions are practicable.

Mr. Shinwell: While I am exceedingly obliged to my right hon. Friend for the latter part of his reply, may I ask him whether it is possible to make it retrospective in this case? Further, does he recognise that this young man—whether he is 18 or 19 is beside the point—has decided that in no circumstances will he work underground and that he prefers to join the Navy or work in any other occupation, however dangerous? He has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment, which has made him a criminal, and the State is deprived of his services

for a considerable time. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend is not happy about that, and I would ask him to look into the matter.

Mr. Bevin: I ought to explain that in such cases I am really the agent of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but I will go into the matter with the Minister.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we regret and deprecate boys being sent to prison, we also regret that after an Order has been made, which they are determined not to comply with by not going down a mine, they walk about doing nothing?

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister see that the process is reversed, so that those who object to going into the Forces should have the opportunity of going underground?

Mr. Bevin: We give an opportunity now to young men to go underground as an alternative to joining the Forces. A large number of men have exercised that option and in that way have assisted in keeping up man-power in the pits.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that boys outside the mining industry have two opportunities, either of joining the Forces or going down the mines? Why not give the same opportunity to boys working on the surface? Many of these boys are psychologically unfit for work underground.

Mr. Bevin: I can only ask my hon. Friend to read his own speeches on manpower, which he has made in this House.

Mr. Edwards: That is no answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (APPRENTICES)

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are made for youths whose term of apprenticeship is interrupted when they are called up to the Forces; and will there be opportunity either by subsidy or arrangement with employers for these youths to complete their apprenticeship when their term of service with the Forces is completed, or can opportunity be presented while in the Forces to complete such apprenticeship?

Mr. Bevin: Provided that there are vacancies in the Service trades concerned when they are called up, apprentices are posted whenever possible to a branch of


the Forces in which they will be able to continue at their trade. In those cases it is contemplated that, subject to appropriate agreements being made with the industries concerned, the experience which the apprentices will have gained will be regarded as part of the apprenticeship. I am in consultation with representatives of the employers' organisations and trade unions concerned on this matter and on the arrangements which may be necessary to enable young people to complete their apprenticeship when discharged from the Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Ministry of Labour (Reports)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour when it is intended to publish the usual up-to-date Annual Reports covering the work of his Department and the factory inspectorate?

Mr. Bevin: In accordance with the general practice in this respect, the publication of the Annual Reports on the Work of the Ministry has been suspended since the beginning of the war. This does not apply to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, but I cannot yet say when his Report for 1942 will be ready.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Ministry of Labour have not issued their Report when other Government Departments have issued theirs?

Mr. Bevin: I think our work speaks for itself.

Ministry of Health (Annual Report)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health when he intends to publish the usual up-to-date Annual Report covering the work of his Department?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I hope to publish a summary Report in three months' time.

Mr. Davies: Would it not be much better if the Report was published to Parliament before the Chief Medical Officer makes pronouncements upon the statistics?

Mr. Brown: Not at all. I am sure the pronouncements have evoked general interest.

Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Staff)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the present number of his staff; the number before it was transferred from the Ministry of Works and Planning; the estimated annual cost of his Department; and the annual cost when it was attached to the Ministry of Works and Planning?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): The number of the staff is at present 183, of whom 145 were transferred from the Ministry of Works and Planning. The estimated cost of my Department for the current financial year is £172,430. Since certain services were common to the Planning Department and other Departments of the Ministry of Works and Planning, it is impossible to give a separate figure of the annual cost of the Planning Department of that Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Bengal Premier (Resignation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the circumstances that have led to the Premier of Bombay relinquishing his office?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The resignation of Mr. Fazl Huq, who has been Premier of Bengal since the introduction of Provincial autonomy in 1937, occurred in the normal course of procedure under Provincial representative institutions. He was not dismissed from office.

Mr. Sorensen: Did Mr. Fazl Huq give any explanation for his resignation, and is it connected in any way with the political situation in India?

Mr. Amery: The explanation was given to the Parliament of Bengal.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister say what it was?

Mr. Amery: It was given at some length.

Mr. Sorensen: Then could the Minister give us a précis?

Political Situation

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is


able to encourage the continuance of the efforts of Mr. Rajagopalachari and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru to bring about a measure of agreement among Indian leaders?

Mr. Amery: It should not be necessary for me to repeat my previous assurance that the efforts of Indian political leaders to find a measure of agreement continue to be welcome to His Majesty's Government and the Viceroy.

Mr. Harvey: Would the Minister use his influence to see that some opportunity at a suitable time is found for conversations, which at present are impossible?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I think I made it clear the other day that there would be great objections to consultations with the Congress leaders without definite assurances and guarantees of a different line of conduct on their part. As regards other leaders, they have been meeting frequently but, I am sorry to say, without agreement.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say whether that method was applied to Irish prisoners in the last war?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE, LONDON

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of assaults in the Metropolitan Police area during the black-out; and what steps he is taking through the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to put an end to these crimes?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to cases of robbery with violence and assaults with intent to rob. In the first three months of this year the number which occurred in the Metropolitan Police District both indoors and in the streets, during black-out hours, showed a slight increase as compared with the corresponding period of 1942, namely 45 as against 42, but there was no increase in the number occurring in the streets. As I have previously stated, all possible steps are being taken by the police to prevent these offences, and they

continue to be successful in detecting and bringing to justice a large proportion of the offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Motor Vehicles (Immobilisation)

Sir W. Brass: asked the Home Secretary whether he will now rescind or modify the Vehicles (Control) Order, 1940, concerning the locking of motorcar doors, so that it shall not apply in urban districts during the hours of daylight, in view of the considerable waste of police time involved in the Metropolitan police area in enforcing it?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) on 18th March.

Sir W. Brass: Is it not a fact that a large number of presecutions result from the locking of the doors, and that the police are wasting their time in that way? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has heard of Mr. Frank Randle, the comedian?

Mr. Morrison: I quite appreciate the point to which my hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention. It is one of the factors I will keep in mind in reviewing this matter from time to time.

Tube Shelter Accident (Inquiry Report)

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make regarding the Tube Shelter Inquiry conducted by Mr. Dunne?

Mr. H. Morrison: When I informed the House on 10th March of the accident which had occurred in the previous week at a London shelter I stated that an Inquiry into its causes was to be held in private, but that, subject to security considerations, the conclusions would be published. Mr. Dunne carried out this Inquiry with thoroughness and expedition and made a lengthy and informative report which, whilst drawing attention to certain matters which might possibly have been contributory causes, shows the accident to have been due to a fortuitous combination of circumstances. It is impossible to make a fair summary of the report or even of the conclusions, without conveying information valuable


to the enemy. The omission of some of the conclusions on security grounds disturbs the balance and must have the effect of misleading any reader who has not had access to the full text. In these circumstances the Government have regretfully felt bound to decide not to publish the conclusions. It is difficult to judge how far all the factors that contributed to the accident could have been foreseen and provided against, but after careful consideration I have reached the conclusion that acts of culpable negligence are not properly to be included amongst the causes. Certain suggestions were made by Mr. Dunne for modifications of existing arrangements which might reduce the risk of a further disaster of this kind, and action is already being taken to introduce these modifications, not only at this shelter but at similar shelters elsewhere. Mr. Dunne, I may add, dismisses as without foundation the rumours that the accident was caused by a Jewish panic or induced by Fascists or criminals for nefarious purposes.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Green: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not usual for the hon. Member who put the original Question to be called if he wishes to put a Supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: Not necessarily.

Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what deep resentment will be felt by the hundreds of relatives of the persons who were victims of this unfortunate disaster? Does he realise the bad effect there will be on the morale of the people if a suspicion arises that he wants to conceal the facts that have been stated to the magistrate who made the inquiry? Therefore, will he reconsider his decision, since we have to consider not only information, if any, which might be of use to the enemy, but also the morale of the people whose relatives were victims of the accident?

Mr. Morrison: As the right hon. Baronet would expect, I have given that aspect very full consideration. I think the House and the people of the district concerned know me sufficiently well to believe that I would not wish to suppress this report in

order to protect anybody. I would not do that, but I am in the dilemma that if I seek to make a summary, it will not be a fair summary if I eliminate those points on which there are security objections. If, on the other hand, I take risks about security, I may well be inviting further trouble for the district concerned. I am sure nobody would wish me to do that.

Mr. Green: In view of the possibility of very widespread feelings of misgiving and misunderstanding in the absence of a report, will my right hon. Friend use his well-known ingenuity to try to discover some formula which would convey the main facts to the people without conveying facts that would be useful to the enemy?

Mr. Morrison: If there should be widespread misunderstanding, I must take that and put up with it. It would not be fair that there should be misunderstanding. I can assure my hon. Friend that this has been most carefully considered by the Government, with every desire to publish the report, but we feel, with a full sense of responsibility, that we should be acting contrary to the national interest, and particularly the interest of the district concerned, if we were to make publication.

Miss Rathbone: Seeing that a number of completely unfounded rumours have been going round, would it not be possible to produce what might be called a negative report definitely eliminating rumours about certain alleged causes that were found not to be causes? For example, my right hon. Friend himself referred to a rumour that spread like wildfire all over London that the accident was caused by panic among the Jewish inhabitants of the shelter. Cannot he do something to make it widely known that there was no panic?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I ought to be drawn into further discussion. I think the hon. Lady will agree that I have made a very handsome observation on that point in order to destroy the rumour.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give a clean bill of health in this unfortunate disaster to the London Passenger Transport Board?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I can say straight away that the London Passenger Transport Board has no responsibility in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES, LONDON (SPEED LIMIT)

Sir W. Brass: asked the Home Secretary how many motor-cars marked with a priority label were timed by the Metropolitan Police during the years 1941–1942, in view of the fact that motor-cars marked with priority are not permitted to exceed 30 miles per hour in built-up areas in war time; and what percentage of those timed were proceeded against for exceeding the statutory limit?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that these particulars are not separately recorded, and I am therefore unable to supply the information desired.

Sir W. Brass: Is not the procedure this, that Cabinet Ministers' priority cars are timed by the Metropolitan Police to exceed the limit and that then they are not proceeded against by the Commissioner of Police, because obviously it would not be in his interest to do so? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Gestapo timed Hitler going down the Unter den Linden, and that he is to be prosecuted for exceeding the limit?

Mr. Morrison: The latter part of the question had better be addressed to the corresponding Minister in Germany, if there is one. On the first point, I have no information to that effect. The Commissioner of Police has to do his duty irrespective of who the person may be. I have no personal experience of having been timed myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (SANITARY AND HYGIENIC MEASURES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that all necessary sanitary and hygienic measures are taken in prisons to avoid the infection and contagion of disease; whether proper bathing facilities are available; and whether thorough medical examination takes place both on the entry of prisoners and at appropriate intervals during their terms of imprisonment?

Mr. H. Morrison: In all prisons detailed precautionary measures are taken to prevent the spread of any infectious or contagious diseases. These include special arrangements with regard to bathing, and arrangements for the medical examination of prisoners both on admission and subsequently. The standard of

health maintained in prisons is an indication of the general efficacy of these measures.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some evidence that the medical examinations are somewhat cursory and cause the spreading of infectious diseases, and if I give him some part of that evidence, will he seriously consider it?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, I will examine any evidence the hon. Member may wish to send to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUTH ON PROBATION

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of a case where a condition was imposed by a court that a lad who was charged and bound over for stealing should join the Merchant Navy, he will take steps to prevent such a condition, which is strongly objected to by all bodies connected with the shipping industry, being imposed?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made inquiry and am informed that in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the lad was placed on probation, but no condition that he should join the Merchant Navy was inserted in the Order.

Mr. Edwards: Did my right hon. Friend read the newspapers last Friday, when a full report of this case was given, and it was said quite definitely that such a condition was made, and if it was made, will my right hon. Friend agree that cases of this sort are so insulting to the Merchant Navy that something should be done in the matter very quickly indeed?

Mr. Morrison: I quite appreciate the point. I did read the newspaper reports, but I am advised by the competent authorities that in this case the newspaper reports were, no doubt inadvertently, inaccurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Green Book

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the President of the Board of Education to whom the Green Book, issued in connection with the promised Education Bill, has been sent; and whether he proposes to make it available for the general public?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the answer I gave to a Question on 31st July, 1941, containing a list of the bodies to which copies of the Green Book have been sent. This memorandum was prepared by officers of the Board to serve as a basis of preliminary discussions with the representatives of those with whom the Board are associated in the education service. It has now fulfilled the object for which it was prepared, and I feel that no useful purpose would be served by extending its circulation. In any case the stock is now exhausted, and I do not propose to reprint.

Mr. Goldie: Will it be made available to Members of the House?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be better if the House awaited a rather more developed scheme.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this book is being continually quoted against Members of Parliament?

Mr. Butler: I think perhaps it would be wiser if Members of Parliament awaited something rather more considered.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the book in the Library?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Will a copy be placed in the Library?

Mr. Butler: I do not think it would serve a useful purpose. If the hon. Member desires to discuss the matter with me, he is certainly at liberty to do so.

Community Centre Proposal, Wiltshire

Sir P. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal of the Wiltshire Education Committee to establish a community centre in the county for the greater development of the cultural life in the countryside; and whether the Board favour such proposals?

Mr. Butler: I have been interested to see from local Press reports that the Wiltshire Education Committee have recently discussed the desirability of establishing a community centre in the county. The Board have not received any definite pro-

posal from the authority for that purpose. They would, of course, be glad to consider any such proposal should the authority decide to put one forward.

Sir P. Hurd: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking, if any, to encourage local education authorities to submit such schemes?

Mr. Butler: The possibility of starting community centres is well known to the authorities, and I should be only too glad to consider any such scheme put forward by the Wiltshire education authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Merchant Seamen (Medical Service)

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Minister of Health whether there has been brought to his notice the memorandum of the Glasgow Medical Officer of Health approved by the Health Committee of the Corporation, urging the creation of a permanent health and medical service for merchant seamen at the major British ports, to include the setting-up of a central representative committee which would unify, or at least co-ordinate, the minor functions now distributed over several administrations; and whether he will consider taking action on these lines?

Mr. E. Brown: I have seen this memorandum, and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will keep it in mind in our consideration of the wider question of a comprehensive national health service.

Hospitals (Air-Raid Wardens)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Minister of Health why it is that air-raid precaution wardens in hospitals, in contradistinction to air-raid precautions wardens elsewhere, do not have any scheme of ranking?

Mr. E. Brown: The wardens referred to by my hon. Friend are not members of the Civil Defence General Services, and any scheme of ranking for them would be a matter of internal administration within the discretion of the governing body of the hospital at which they are employed.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men suffer a definite hardship just because they are employed by his Ministry instead of the Ministry of Home Security? They have to take


orders from men junior to themselves who happen to belong to the Ministry of Home Security.

Mr. Brown: I should like to see that Question down in terms. I have not had any general representations about it.

Milk (Pasteurisation)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the British Medical Association is advocating the pasteurisation of tuberculin-tested milk; and whether he is satisfied that the process is necessary and desirable?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is: "Yes, Sir." On the second part, I am advised that, though the risk of contracting tuberculosis from drinking raw tuberculin-tested milk is remote, the danger of its conveying other milk-borne diseases can only be removed by adequate heat treatment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: In view of the fact that tuberculin-tested milk is frequently mixed with dirty milk, is not general pasteurisation desired by some in order to preserve for keeping purposes this filthy mixture which has not even the decency of turning sour in order to warn the general public of its danger?

Mr. Brown: I advise my hon. friend to read my answer.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: When will the long-awaited statement on the subject be made? The Government have promised it for a long time past.

Mr. Brown: That is not for me to say.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can we have a milk-bar in this House?

Rehabilitation Treatment

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish for public guidance the exact nature of his notification to the large hospitals throughout Britain of the coming review of rehabilitation measures for the sick and injured?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. A copy of the letter which I have sent to a number of hospitals on the subject of rehabilitation treatment will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the letter:

"Ministry of Health,

Whitehall, S.W.I

SIR,

Rehabilitation Treatment at Hospitals.

I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to the recently published report (Cmd. 6415) of the Inter-departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Re-settlement of Disabled Persons, presided over by Mr. George Tomlinson, M.P., Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. The report contains some important recommendations as to rehabilitation measures associated with the hospital services, but it will be seen that in the main it endorses what has already been done in this direction under the stimulus of the Emergency Hospital Scheme, and urges that further developments should be secured as soon as possible so far as wartime conditions will allow, for the benefit of patients suffering from general surgical and medical conditions, as well as of those suffering from fractures and other physical injuries.

The Minister agrees fully with the principle of these recommendations in their application not only to the patients included in the Emergency Hospital Scheme, for which he is responsible, but also to the general body of patients treated at hospitals. He recognises, however, the limitations imposed at the present time by other calls on skilled personnel and on labour and materials.

As a first step he has decided to conduct a detailed review of the rehabilitation measures at present carried out in the larger hospitals throughout the country and for this purpose has instructed his Hospital Officers in each Region and Sector to arrange for visits by members of their staffs, with whom may be associated other medical men with experience and interest in this field of medicine and having knowledge of hospitals in the area. The aim is to explore by full and frank discussion with those concerned what expedients hospitals can be advised to adopt to secure the greatest possible development of rehabilitation measures under wartime conditions. The Minister feels sure that hospital authorities will give every assistance to those who visit their hospitals in connection with this enquiry.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant.

Hospital Ambulances (Petrol)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the serious scarcity of petrol for hospital ambulances in the Black Country; and will he endeavour to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of only one instance in or near the area mentioned in which difficulty has arisen about petrol allowance for a hospital ambulance. In this case the Petroleum Officer, some


months ago, questioned the amount applied for, which showed an increase on the previous rate of consumption. The matter has since been under negotiation with the Hospital Authority, who have now submitted a revised and much reduced application, which has been agreed. I will send my hon. Friend particulars of this case, and if he has any others in mind he will no doubt let me know.

Mr. Hannah: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a leading doctor at Bilston made a serious complaint a week ago?

Mr. Brown: It may be that my answer will throw light on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Priorities

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether priority will be given in all building for civilian purposes to the reconstruction of council houses and those being bought through building societies?

Mr. E. Brown: The question of postwar building priorities is one for decision by the Government after consideration of the advice given to them by my Noble Friend the Minister of Works, who is surveying the whole field in consultation with the other Ministers concerned. But I gladly repeat the assurance which I gave recently in the House that I shall press for the highest priority for housing work in view of its vital importance to the health and well-being of the nation, and I shall certainly have regard to the important point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this point? Many people who have been buying their own houses want to know if there is any chance of their being rebuilt quickly after the war, because it will have some effect on whether they keep up their payments now or not.

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Cottage Gardens

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health whether, in planning the erection of cottages after the war, he will state the contemplated average size of the gardens which shall be attached thereto.

Mr. E. Brown: The matter is under consideration by my Central Housing Advisory Committee, and I shall consider the advice I receive from them in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and County Planning.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the need for allotments to go with cottages?

Aged Married Couples

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health whether, in his scheme for postwar building, special attention will be given to the construction of small houses for the use of aged married couples?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Empty Houses (Leasing by Local Authorities)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Health whether local authorities in cases of acute lack of accommodation, are entitled to lease large empty houses which need a minimum of reconstruction, and accommodate therein sets of families under municipal supervision?

Mr. E. Brown: Local authorities have power to lease houses under Section 72 of the Housing Act, 1936, but reconstruction would be subject to the terms of the lease.

Plans (Disapproval)

Mr. William Brown: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. and Mrs. Hilditch, of Binley, near Coventry, after having had a house built for them, found the plans disapproved by the local authority concerned; and whether he will warn the public not to order building operations to be started before the necessary approval of plans has been obtained?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the rural district council that this building contravenes their by-laws in several important respects. This unfortunate position would have been avoided if the plans had been deposited with the council in the ordinary way. The building seems to have been erected by a person who was not ordinarily engaged in the building trade. All regular builders are aware of the normal obligation to deposit with the local authority plans of a proposed building, and I do not think that any special warning is called for.

Transferred War Workers

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health whether he can increase the minimum quantity of furniture supplied to transferred war workers in billets where they are accommodated in bare rooms only; and whether he will take steps to impress further on the householders concerned that hospitality to such workers is a social duty of importance in the war effort?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind, but if a householder on whom a war worker has been billeted is unable to provide a bed or bedding, arrangements have been made for these articles to be supplied from public stores. If the hon. Member will let me know of any particular difficulties which have been experienced, I will have inquiries made, and I will look into the matters raised in the document to which he has referred in his recent letter to me. As regards the last part of the Question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service and I take every opportunity to impress on householders the importance of this matter in the national interest, and I am glad to say that in general the response is very satisfactory.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the situation in the particular districts referred to in the document?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health whether transferred war workers are permitted to go on living in private houses, in which they have been billeted, during the absence, on holiday or for other causes, of the householders?

Mr. Brown: In such circumstances it would be the normal practice to move the person billeted to other accommodation for the time being.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an unpatriotic minority of householders who do treat billetees with rudeness and inhospitality and will even go away for a week or two in order to avoid having workers billeted in their houses? Can he do anything about this?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID VICTIMS, 1914–18 (COMPENSATION)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Health the number of men and women, respectively, who are receiving compensation as air-raid victims in 1914–18, and, in addition, the scale upon which they are being compensated?

Mr. E. Brown: Fifteen men and twenty women. The awards, which were individually assessed, range from three to twenty shillings a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL HEREDITAMENTS (DERATING)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will repeal the statutory provisions derating industrial hereditaments in view of the fact that the reasons for derating them, namely, unemployment and industrial depression, no longer exist?

Mr. E. Brown: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 23rd April, 1942.

Mr. Lipson: What justification is there under present conditions for industrial hereditaments to be exempt?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that in reply to a Supplementary Question.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me one justification?

Mr. Brown: I must refer the hon. Member again to the Answer I have mentioned.

Mr. MacLaren: Is not the only person who can give information on the point the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made this ridiculous provision?

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that most large authorities want this abolition?

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Approved Schemes

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Head-lam: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many town planning schemes are in existence which were sanctioned before the outbreak of the present war?

Mr. Henry Strauss: One hundred and forty-seven planning schemes now operative in England and Wales had been approved before the outbreak of the present war, and 10 more have been approved and become operative subsequently.

Sir C. Headlam: Is my hon. Friend aware that the schemes are reputed to cater for a population of approximately 300,000,000 people, and that no consideration has been given to the preservation of agricultural land? Will the Minister see that when replanning these plans, full consideration is given to the preservation of agricultural land?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly, Sir. The problem to which my hon. and gallant Friend calls attention is well known to my Ministry and will be borne in mind.

Planning Officers (Remuneration)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that many local authorities offer less than £6 per. week to planning officers; and whether he is satisfied that such remuneration is adequate to attract trained and experienced experts?

Mr. Henry Strauss: I do not think that the offer of such a salary would be sufficient to attract trained and experienced experts in planning, but I have no information which supports the suggestion that many local authorities are offering less than this amount to such officers.

Mr. Bossom: Will my hon. Friend investigate? If he does, he will find that nearly all the advertisements for town and country planning officers before the war were for a salary of £6 per week or less? Did not the absence of authoritative knowledge largely cause the failure of the 1932 Act, and ought we not to avoid repeating the same failure?

Location of Industries

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, as the Minister of Health is now urging local authorities to proceed with their plans for postwar housing, whether he will restrict or define the location and approximate extent of new industries, or the revival of old ones, in any area?

Mr. Henry Strauss: The preliminary housing arrangements, which my right

hon. Friend the Minister of Health has asked housing authorities to make, are limited to a one-year's building programme, on which the major problems of reconstruction referred to by the hon. Member are not likely to arise. In regard to these problems, I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) on 10th March, 1943.

Mr. Bossom: Does not my hon. Friend recall that the local authorities have been asked to acquire the full size of all areas of both bombed sites and sites that will be needed for housing; and can they do this intelligently without this information regarding the extent of new industries, and these sites will not be required only for the first year's work but will form a material part of their full housing programme?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to his noble Friend that a good deal of confusion is arising in the country as to where the respective responsibilities for housing as between the Ministry of Health and his Ministry lie and what are the lines of demarcation, and will he take an early opportunity to clarify the position?

Mr. Strauss: There must be some confusion because the hon. Member referred to my Minister as my Noble Friend. That is not my Department. I think that the confusion is being rapidly diminished.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Pensions, how many ex-soldiers who served in the Boer war are receiving disability pensions; whether he can state approximately the rate of such pensions compared with present-day disability pensions in the 100 per cent. and 50 per cent. class; and what are the rates for men blinded in this war and in the Boer war, respectively?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): About 4,000 ex-soldiers who served in the Boer war are still in receipt of disability pensions, the rates of which were brought up to the Great War level; thus the appropriate pension for a private assessed at 100 per cent. is 40s. and at


50 per cent. is 20s. The corresponding pension rates for the present war are 37s. 6d. and 18s. 9d. Ex-service men who have been blinded as the result of their service in any of these wars are regarded as 100 per cent. disabled.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify pensions in this war 40 years after the Boer War being less than they are for that war?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member did not quite understand my reply. The pensioners from the Boer War got considerably less pension than the pensioners of this war until 1919, when all the rates were brought up because of the then excessive cost of living, which was 215, with the proviso that with the first 5 per cent. increase on that figure there should be an automatic increase in pension and with a 5 per cent. decrease there would be an automatic decrease. No decrease of pension has ever taken place, however, because the Government in office at the time of the decrease in the cost of living did not exercise that right. The present pensions are based on the cost-of-living figure.

Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that pensions to-day are 2s. 6d. less than the Boer War pensions?

Sir W. Womersley: They are 2s. 6d. less than pensions in 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission or an appropriate committee to investigate and report on the method of use of currency, the control of credit, investment and exchange, with particular reference to the need for the maximum utilisation of resources, productive capacity, full employment and the bringing about of international economic co-operation and the maximum export trade?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): His Majesty's Government do not consider that the appointment of a Royal Commission in present circumstances to inquire into the matters mentioned would be desirable.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has Sir William Beveridge appointed himself to this job

because the Government are not going to do it?

Mr. Smith: What steps are being taken to benefit from our experience of the last 20 years and to avoid the mistakes that have been made in connection with this question?

Mr. Attlee: These matters are being examined by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — MASS UNEMPLOYMENT (PREVENTION)

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the prevention of mass unemployment which may arise during the immediate post-war period and in the future generally; and whether he will regard this problem as of primary importance having regard to the public interest in the Beveridge Plan of Social Security and so-called freedom from want?

Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government regard the prevention of unemployment after the war as of primary importance. It is clear, however, that this problem cannot be considered in isolation from our general economic policy, both in the immediate post-war period and subsequently. His Majesty's Government are already giving these matters the most careful consideration, and I do not think that any addition is required for this purpose to the existing machinery.

Mr. MacLaren: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Government do not know at this time of day what the cause of unemployment is?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the matter being considered by the Government departmentally or by the Government as a whole, comprehensively, through some Cabinet Committee?

Mr. Attlee: There are a number of ramifications of this subject. Some of them must necessarily be dealt with by Departments—for instance, the question of foreign relations in connection with commerce and so forth—but the general problem is viewed by the Government as a whole.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the importance of a coordinated and comprehensive study of the problem and of not dealing with it in iso-


lation departmentally, more particularly because, if Sir William Beveridge proceeds with his threat to investigate the question of unemployment, there will be created a rivalry as between an independent person outside studying this problem and the Government? Surely that is undesirable?

Sir Alfred Beit: Can my right hon. Friend throw any light on Sir William Beveridge's statement that he is going to investigate this problem?

Mr. Stokes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the root cause of unemployment is the private ownership and control of land?

Sir R. Clarry: Cannot the Government come to some definite decision about mass unemployment before they start even considering this freedom from want plan?

Mr. De la Bère: Does it not show unfinished thinking on a large scale?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Farm Workers (Civil Defence Duties)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Labour with a view to ensuring that full-time agricultural workers are not directed by the Ministry of Labour, through their local branches, to engage in part-time work with the National Fire Service, which entails their sacrificing some of their working hours on the farm; and, in cases where they have to travel long distances of three or four miles, whether they can be made immune from this form of duty, having regard to the importance of the utmost production from the land?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Conditions of employment and other personal circumstances are taken into consideration before directions to undertake Civil Defence work are issued; and there is provision for a directed person to appeal on grounds of exceptional hardship. I do not think it would be practicable to arrange for the exemption of all or any class of agricultural workers from liability to perform part-time Civil Defence duties, but I will be glad to look into any particular case where an obligation to perform such duties by an agricultural worker is causing interference with food production. In cases of this sort

where hardship is involved, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has already expressed his willingness to look into the matter, but no complaints have yet been brought to his notice.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are three Departments concerned—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office? Does he not realise that what is everybody's business becomes nobody's business? Is he not trustee for the agricultural community? Is not this interfering with food production, and ought not something really substantial to be done about it? I beg to give notice that, owing to the unconvincing nature of the answer, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Rabbits (Destruction)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider, in the interests of good farming and forestry, a national policy of the destruction of rabbits, except in suitable enclosed places where they can be grown for food?

Mr. Hudson: A national campaign for the destruction of the wild rabbit has been in progress since the outbreak of war and has achieved a considerable measure of success. Even if it were desirable, it would not be feasible, in view of the shortage of wire netting, to enclose places for the production of wild rabbits for food.

Mr. Hannah: Is it possible after the war to get enough wire netting for this purpose, and is it fair that when every other inhabitant of this country is being regulated to death Brer Rabbit should be free to do as he likes?

Statistics

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers there are at work in agriculture; and how many agricultural labourers similarly employed?

Mr. Hudson: I regret that these figures are not available for publication during the war.

Rural Crafts (Apprentices)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the resolution sent to him recently by a conference of Essex blacksmiths, saddlers, wheelwrights, thatchers and hurdlemakers, drawing attention to the small number of


men now engaged in these essential trades; and whether he will introduce a scheme for training apprentices or take other steps to secure a revival of these trades?

Mr. Hudson: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to by the hon. Member, and I am aware that the national bodies concerned are also considering the need for action to secure the revival of the crafts in question. For the steps which are being taken by my Department in the interests of rural crafts, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie).

Mr. Driberg: Taking one of these crafts alone, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, having regard to the acute shortage of rural houses, the importance of keeping alive the craft of the thatcher; and can he indicate whether these matters are likely to be covered in the forthcoming Luxmoore Report?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot answer from memory the last part of the Question. As to the first part, I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME (CHILDREN)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inform the House why young people under the age of 15 years are ineligible for compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme?

Sir W. Womersley: Young people under the age of 15 are not ineligible for compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. The Scheme covers every child, however young, but payment of pension does not begin until he is 15 unless, when he is injured, he has started work. Free medical treatment is of course available for war-injured children but there is no reason for making money payments to children who are not employed and have not reached the normal working age.

Sir T. Moore: If the children have been injured, surely that will mean an expense to the parents, and therefore whatever is due to the children at 15 should be paid during the period of

injury so as to help the parents to meet the increased expense.

Sir W. Womersley: Free hospital treatment is provided by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Entertainments Duty

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the theatrical productions on which in 1942 the Entertainments Duty was waived?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that the information asked for could not be made available without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Post-war Currency Policy

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Memorandum on Post-war Currency and International Clearing, circulated to representatives of the United Nations in Europe attending the Treasury conference and to the observers of the United States of America, China and Russia, can now be made available to Members of this House?

Sir K. Wood: As my hon. Friend is aware, this paper was available to the House yesterday.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that the whole of the Memorandum is embodied in the White Paper?

Sir K. Wood: indicated assent.

Lend-Lease

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the official statement made in America on the amount of Lend-Lease afforded to the Allies by the United States of America, he is able now to state the amount in sterling of Lend-Lease facilities afforded to the United States Government?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. This mutual aid in a common task is not reckoned in terms of dollars or of pounds.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that very full statements have appeared in America on the aid given by the United States of America to the United Nations? Surely my right hon. Friend reads some books and knows what is happening, and would it not be in the public interest that we should know?

Sir K. Wood: No, the hon. Member is quite on the wrong basis.

Mr. Stokes: It is very unsatisfactory.

"Wings for Victory" Weeks

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the Manchester "Wings for Victory" week a separate record has been kept of subscriptions by stamps, certificates, deposits in the banks and Defence Bonds; whether he will have the final Manchester results published and cause all other organisers of "Wings for Victory" weeks to do likewise?

Sir K. Wood: In reply to the first part of the Question, I am aware that the Manchester Committee, in common with other local savings committees, keeps a record of these particulars. In reply to the second part, it is open to any local committee to publish these particulars and many do so; I do not consider that it is necessary to issue any further instructions.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend really interested in getting at what are the genuine savings of the people, and does he not agree that all these "Wings for Victory" weeks are inflated by the banks holding off investments for two or three weeks beforehand and then piling them all in?

Sir K. Wood: I know that the hon. Gentleman has some particular views on this matter, and I shall be publishing shortly a White Paper in which many of the facts which he desires will appear.

Sir Adam Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Questions like this asked by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) are likely to discourage savings?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I do not think people will take any notice of them.

Service Men's Parcels from Overseas (Customs Duty Concession)

Mr. Murray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the cases of men in the Services overseas who send small parcels home and pay postage duty on these parcels at the place of despatch, the parents or relatives of these men are being called upon to pay additional sums on receipt of parcels, amounting in three known cases to 5s.,

8s. 8d. and 15s. 5d.; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

Sir K. Wood: Customs duty is, of course, payable in this country on receipt of a dutiable parcel in addition to the postage paid by the sender. But I have recently authorised a concession by which each member of His Majesty's Forces serving overseas may send home free of duty four parcels a year subject to certain limits and conditions. The full details of the concession have been notified to the Forces.

Mr. Murray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how very discontented and disturbed both the parents and the soldiers overseas are that charges should be imposed such as have been set out in the Question, and of the hardship and discontent that arise when these men, who have very little money, learn that after they have sent these parcels home their parents have to pay these charges on receiving them?

Sir K. Wood: It was in an endeavour to meet that situation that I have made this concession.

Mr. Mathers: Is it possible for the Chancellor to make these new conditions known to Members of this House?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly. I will put something in the Library which will give the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNESTABLISHED CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Lipson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the case sent to him of a temporary established civil servant who, after 12 years of service, received no pension or gratuity on retirement; and, in view of the fact that a woman clerk who was established received, on marriage, after the same years of service, a gratuity of £100, will he review the conditions of service of temporary established civil servants of 10 years standing and over?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): Yes, Sir. The officer in question was an unestablished civil servant and as such was not eligible for pension. As he was retired on age grounds and his service was only 12 years he was also ineligible for a gratuity under Section 4 of


the Superannuation Act, 1887, which requires a minimum service of 15 years in such cases. Marriage gratuities are payable only to established women civil servants, and the conditions of their award are entirely different.

Mr. Lipson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a misuse of the English language to describe a man as a temporary employee when he has been in the service for 10 years or more?

Mr. Assheton: It is the hon. Member who used that term; it is not mine.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Sir T. Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will consider reintroducing the pre-war size and scope of traffic lights in view of the longer hours of daylight now prevailing and the difficulty of distinguishing the different colours of the lights in sunny weather?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I regret that shortage of labour and material would make it impracticable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal to return to pre-war standards of traffic lighting. Many improvements, however, have recently been made and they will continue. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend details of what is being done.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not mean just removing the plates which are in front of the lights? That would not involve great labour.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We cannot increase the lighting during the black-out. That is the difficulty, but my hon. and gallant Friend will find that nearly every highway authority has in fact introduced for daylight hours either a half-face or full-face light.

Sir A. Beit: Is it not a fact that such an improvement has not been introduced on roads such as the Great West Road and others where there is fast traffic, but only in the cities where there is slow traffic?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope the improvement will be extended to the Great West Road.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (LABOUR CONDITIONS)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the publication of the Reports of his Labour Adviser into labour matters in Mauritius and Malaya may be expected; and whether he has in contemplation any further inquiries in other colonial areas by his Labour Adviser?

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first part of the Question, I have been asked to refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) on 3rd February, to which he has nothing at present to add. The report referred to in that reply includes also a report on labour conditions in Malaya. With regard to the second part, it is one of the normal functions of the Labour Adviser to visit Colonial territories from time to time.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will my hon. and gallant Friend convey to the Secretary of State that this reply is regarded as extremely unsatisfactory; will he also point out to him that we have been waiting for two years for the report on Mauritius, and that in view of the labour difficulties there it is important that that Report should be published? May I also ask that the Labour Adviser should investigate very quickly labour conditions not only in the East African but also in the South African areas?

Oral Answers to Questions — "DRIVE YOURSELF" MOTOR HIRE

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why, in view of the need to avoid unnecessary use of petrol, certain motor dealers are still able to hire out "Drive yourself" motor-cars and give hirers an allowance of one to one and a-half gallons of petrol a day without questions being asked as to the use for which the motor-cars are required; and will he put an end to this practice?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): It is not possible within the ambit of Question and Answer in this House to deal with the present system. My Department has, however, had under examination for some time the question of hired cars, and I am proposing at an early


date to make certain changes, on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, details of which will be announced shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Requisitioned Grammar School

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a certain grammar school, of which he has been informed, which was requisitioned in 1940, has been occupied since the beginning of 1943 by about 50 officers and men and that no combatant training is now being carried on; whether he is satisfied that there is further justification for this costly occupation which has created great inconvenience; and, in view of the availability of other suitable accommodation and of the urgent need of the school for educational purposes, he will consent to release these premises?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am informed that until March of this year on the average about 280 non-commissioned officers and men and a few officers were accommodated in this school. Since then it has been put to a different use, and only about 170 of all ranks have been accommodated there, but as over half of them are officers the available space is fully taken up. Towards the end of last year the War Department carefully considered the possibility of giving up this accommodation, but I regret that no suitable alternative could be found.

Mr. Leach: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the military authorities did actually inform the City Council that they could have this school back, but later on withdrew that permission and showed a great amount of indecision as to their actually needing the school at all. Will he please go into the matter afresh, when I am sure he will be able to come to a definite conclusion?

Mr. Henderson: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any suitable alternative accommodation, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Leach: That has been done already.

Major-General Sir Percy Laurie

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War what he intends doing in

connection with Major-General Sir Percy Laurie, who was convicted at the Bow Street police court on Saturday, 3rd April?

Mr. A. Henderson: In accordance with King's Regulations, this officer was suspended from his appointment when the summons was served upon him relating to the charges on which he was convicted. He may exercise his right of appeal against the conviction; and meanwhile it would clearly be improper for my right hon. Friend to make any statement of his intentions.

Mr. Thorne: May I take it that we shall have a report, when this gentleman makes an appeal?

Mr. Henderson: That will depend upon whether an hon. Member puts down a Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the forthcoming Business?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Second and Third Sitting Days—A general Debate will take place on the Budget Resolutions.
Fourth Sitting Day—Supply (4th Allotted Day); Committee. Continuation of the Debate on Colonial Administration in the West Indies; Second Reading of the Evidence and Powers of Attorney Bill [Lords] and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill [Lords].
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already informed the House that we propose an alteration in the time of meeting for the First Sitting Day.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that the House is glad to see the Leader of the House back. I should like to put two questions to him. First, as to the White Paper issued yesterday on the proposal for an International Clearing Union, I suggest to the Government that it would be most improper if this matter were discussed on the Budget and that the proper course might be for the Government to give time


for it subsequently. I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman could say anything also on the possibility of a Debate before Easter on the subject of refugees?

Mr. Eden: In regard to the first question, the Government fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It would be a mistake to attempt to discuss this White Paper during the course of the Budget Resolutions. If it is desired, the Government will be prepared to arrange for a special day at some suitable opportunity. As regards refugees, the House perhaps knows that a meeting between our representatives and those of the United States is to take place very shortly indeed. I think we shall be able to get better value from the Debate if we see what is the outcome of that meeting before we attempt to discuss the matter.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Government bear in mind the urgency of this problem and the fact that many thousands of people, large numbers, are being murdered from day to day and are unable to get away from their persecutors?

Mr. Eden: I think the House understands the seriousness of this situation. The only question is how most usefully to handle it. I should find difficulty in making any useful contribution while our representatives were in discussion with those of the United States.

Miss Rathbone: May we hope there will be an opportunity for a discussion before Easter and that it will not be put off until after the Easter holidays?

Mr. Eden: I could not give an undertaking. It depends on how long the discussions take. I should not think they will take very long. A further point is that I do not know how long the Easter holiday will be.

Mr. Foster: May I ask the Leader of the House whether consideration has been given to the Motion standing on the Paper in my name and that of other hon. Members in relation to workmen's compensation, and whether the Government will give an early day for it to be debated?
[This House is of opinion that the scales of payment to injured workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, deny a reasonable standard of living to

the injured workman and his dependants and delays his restoration to full industrial employment, and calls upon the Government to take steps to raise the rates provided for in the 1925 Act by 50 per cent., and to adjust the method of calculating pre-accident earnings so that the injured-workmen may be compensated on an equitable basis.]

Mr. Eden: I do not think I could give that undertaking. We should have a discussion through the usual channels to discover the extent of the demand for a Debate.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Government find time for a Debate upon the housing problem, as a good deal of speculation exists in house property, and hardship is arising.

Mr. Eden: I understand that notice has already been given to raise this matter when the Estimates are before the House.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order. It is only a small point, but I think it is worth clearing up. Questions on the Paper coming up for answer are given as allotted to the "first, second or third" Sitting Days. Should that not read "second, third and fourth" Sitting Days respectively?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. There will be no Questions on the first Sitting Day.

Mr. Driberg: That is just my point, Sir. Therefore Questions down for the "first" Sitting Day should read "second."

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is right.

DENTISTRY (APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE)

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have, in connection with the proposals for a comprehensive health service, had under consideration the question of dentistry, and I am now able, with your permission, Sir, to inform the House of the conclusions reached. The supply of dentists and the arrangements under which their services can be made available must be important factors in determining the extent and form of the provision to be made for the inclusion of dental treatment


as a part of a comprehensive health service. Accordingly, before formulating any proposals, we think it desirable to have the best possible advice on these and other important aspects of the problem, and have decided to appoint a Committee for that purpose. I am glad to be able to inform the House that Lord Teviot has agreed to act as Chairman of the Committee and, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the Committee and its terms of reference.

Mr. Mathers: Will that involve trying to stabilise the position in these times by stopping the call-up of dentists and their mechanics to the Forces?

Mr. Brown: No, that will be a matter for day-to-day administration.

Following are the particulars:

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON DENTISTRY

Terms of Reference

To consider and report upon:

(a) the progresive stages by which, having regard to the number of practising dentists, provision for an adequate and satisfactory-dental service should be made available for the population:
(b) the measures to be taken to secure an adequate number of entrants to the dental profession:
(c) existing legislation dealing with the practise of dentistry and the government of the dental profession:
(d) measures for the encouragement and co-ordination of research into the causation, prevention and treatment of dental diseases.

Members

The Lord Teviot, D.S.O., M.C.
L. C. Attkins, Esq., L.D.S.
F. J. Ballard, Esq.
E. G. Beam, Esq., C.B., C.B.E.
R. B. Bradlaw, Esq., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., L.D.S.
R. J. Brocklehurst, Esq., M.A., D.M.
T. H. J. Douglas, Esq., L.R.C.P.E., L.R.C.S.E., F.R.F.P.S.G., L.D.S.
W. Kelsey Fry, Esq., M.C., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., L.D.S.
Major-General J. P. Helliwell, C.B.E., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., L.D.S.
A. C. W. Hutchinson, Esq., D.D.S., M.D.S., L.D.S., F.R.S.E.
H. T. A. McKeag, Esq., B.A., B.D.S.
T. Rankin Esq., O.B.E., L.D.S.
Alderman W. L. Raynes, M.A.
Andrew Shearer, Esq., O.B.E.
Councillor John Stewart.
Dame Gwendoline Trubshaw.
R. Weaver, Esq., M.D., B.Ch., L.D.S.
Bryan J. Wood. Esq., L.D.S.
A. C. T. Woodward, Esq.

Mr. EDEN'S VISIT TO UNITED STATES AND CANADA

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I take this opportunity to make to the House a brief report of the visit which I have recently made to the United States at the invitation of the United States Government, and to Canada on the invitation of the Canadian Government. I need hardly tell the House that I was very glad to accept both these invitations. More than a year ago it fell to my lot to pay a visit to Moscow, where I had a conversation about political questions, both present and future, with M. Stalin and M. Molotoy. I therefore welcomed all the more cordially this opportunty to have similar discussions with the United States Government. The House may perhaps notice that the terms of the communiqué issued on my arrival were very wide. I can assure the House that the discussions were equally wide in scope. I can assure the House too that nothing could have exceeded the cordiality shown by everyone in the United States and in Canada to their British visitor. The President himself was very liberal in the time that he gave to me. I had repeated conferences with him, both alone and in company with his advisers. I was, during the latter part of my stay in Washington, his guest at the White House. Mr. Cordell Hull equally extended to me a most generous welcome, and he instructed his Department to place itself, during the period of our visit, entirely at the disposal of myself and my colleagues from the Foreign Office, a gesture which, I can assure the House, was deeply appreciated, and of which we made the fullest use in our power.
I think perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to tell the House at this point that with the full approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister I extended, while I was in Washington, an invitation to the American Secretary of State to come and pay us a visit in this country at any time convenient to him during the course of this summer. I am sure the House will endorse me when I say that if he does find it possible to come, he will have the most cordial welcome, both on his own account and on account of the great country he represents.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden: I also had the advantage of meeting Vice-President Wallace and, I think, every member of the Cabinet of the United States. But there was one particular opportunity which I had of which I must give a special account to this House, for it was of a Parliamentary character. Thanks to the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, Senator Connally, and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, Representative Sol Bloom, I was able to have informal discussion with members of the two Committees drawn from both parties in the two Houses of Congress. The House, of course, is aware of the important part these Committees play in the national life and in the policy of the United States. That for me was a most valuable experience. We exchanged views very freely off the record to my very great advantage and, I hope, perhaps just a little bit to theirs too. At any rate the exchanges were frank and ranged over every topic and every view. During a brief interval, a week-end, I spent a little time in New York, where I was able to meet other prominent American political figures, such as Mr. Hoover, Mayor La Guardia and Mr. Wilkie, and also many writers for the Press and commentators on the air, for whose courtesy to me I must express my thanks. Thus I think the House will see that I had a pretty wide opportunity of gauging and trying to understand the various trends of opinion in the United States at this time.
The conversations in which I was engaged fall broadly under three chapter headings. The first was what I may call operational matters, that is to say, immediate questions concerned with the conduct of the war of a type and character that do not normally fall under the aegis of the Foreign Office. These are the type of questions which arise always, in times of war, between two Allies engaged in a common struggle, and the opportunity of a visit by a member of the War Cabinet is taken to try to regulate or make progress with them. These questions quite evidently are not such as I can describe and present to this House at the present time, but on this subject I think that both the Prime Minister and I were well satisfied with the progress made.
The second chapter heading covers the question of political co-operation between us in connection with actual military

operations that have taken place or that will take place. It is obvious to the House that as the war progresses it becomes more and more important that there should be close co-ordination in the political sphere as in the military sphere, and in some respects, may I say, it is more difficult to obtain, because you may be faced with political developments as a result of military action which no man can foresee. It remains true that if we can get this close political co-ordination, if we have a close understanding, at least we are better able to stand the strains and stresses which will inevitably arise as the military campaigns progress. That is what we sought to do.
I would like to give one example, which I think may interest the House, of the difficulties. I take North Africa. There is no doubt that it is felt in the United States that there has been some misunderstanding in this country of the purposes the United States Administration had in mind in maintaining relations with Vichy. I can assure the House that their motive for doing that was not special tenderness for Vichy but because they thought, and we agreed with them, that by maintaining relations with Vichy it was possible to keep open a useful window on Europe which must otherwise be shut. I have no doubt that we were right and that they were right. Let me take another example. It was only through the maintenance of those relations that the American Government were able to place a considerable number of agents in North Africa who were quite invaluable in paving the way for the arrival of the Allied troops. No such thing would have been possible had not those relations been maintained. It was quite clear to me that many in the United States feel that we have not understood the motives which prompted their action and have attributed to them a tenderness for Vichy or Pétain or Laval and the rest of them which in fact they do not feel. I mention that to show that that is the kind of topic which it is invaluable should be talked out between those responsible in the two countries. At any rate, we did talk it out, and I am satisfied that as regards future policy towards France there is complete agreement between us. We and the United States have only one desire, to see all sections of the French people who are prepared to fight the common enemy united together. We will do what we can to help them to


unite, though it is not always a very easy task.
We examined as well as that our common policy in respect of Spain, Portugal, Turkey and the other remaining neutrals in Europe and agreed on our policy in all respects in regard to those countries. We examined together conditions in other parts of Europe, both enemy Europe and enemy-occupied countries. We agreed that our common policy would be strengthened by the freest exchange of our knowledge of what was going on in those countries and of our interpretation of the information that came to us, and we have certain plans which are being elaborated for trying to improve the exchange of information under this head. As regards the occupied countries there is only one policy which we and the United States Government are pursuing, which is to do all in our power to restore to them their full liberty at the earliest possible moment.
That was the second chapter heading. The third was described in the communiqué as "Other questions arising out of the war," so that these subjects covered the widest range. They included such questions as the practical problems which will arise on the surrender of the enemy, and the task which will face the United States Government, our Government, the Soviet Government, the Chinese Government, and the other Governments of the United Nations, in safeguarding the world against further aggression. As the President has made plain in his published statement, on all those topics we found a very close similarity of outlook. Admittedly, these exchanges were entirely exploratory in character. They neither committed the American Government nor ourselves, nor could they do so, because other Governments have to be consulted and exchanges have to take place with those Governments. The last thing we wanted to do was to present our Allies with a hard and fast agreement reached between the two of us. That was never in our minds. I have come back greatly encouraged by the large measure of general agreement we found. I am certain that that will be of great value to us in the further exchanges we shall have, both with the United States and with other Governments who are our Allies.
Perhaps I may be allowed here one observation on the nature of our relations generally with the Government and people of the United States. I think it is a mistake to attempt to base those relations mainly upon sentiment. We might not always like each other very much. I think it is also a mistake to try to base them on common origin, or common parentage, or even common language, because there will be occasions when we differ one from the other. But I think it is desirable to base them on their true foundation, which is a common interest in the maintenance of world peace and in preventing a repetition of these catastrophic world conflicts every 20 years. If we keep to that foundation, we shall be in less danger of the ups and downs which we have sometimes seen in Anglo-American relations. I believe that definition to be profoundly true, and I believe it to be well understood on both sides of the Atlantic at the present time.
We, here, recognise the need for some authority to ensure by force that neither Germany, Italy nor Japan should be able to repeat their aggression. I believe the American people share that view and that if this authority is to be effective all peace-loving nations will have to contribute their part too. Of the last 30 years, we in this country have spent eight at war with Germany and nobody can yet say when will be the end of the present struggle. I reported to the United States Government that if I could judge the temper of the people here aright, there was no disposition, when this struggle was over, to trust to luck and hope for the best, and I found exactly the same view in the United States. Therefore, I say that while it would be the height of unwisdom to cease to concentrate our thought and effort on the main task of winning the war, while it would be a mistake to distract ourselves with many prolonged public debates on post-war problems, at the same time it is necessary that the Governments of the countries principally concerned shall begin now to make certain preparations so that they may not be completely unready when the moment comes. It seems to me that the matter was very well expressed by Mr. Sumner Welles a little while ago when he said:
We cannot afford to permit the basic issues by which the destiny of humanity will be determined to be resolved, without prior agreement,


by a group of harassed statesmen working against time.
Our conversations in Washington were intended to safeguard against just that danger. They constitute a beginning. A start has been made in the best conditions and I claim no more for them than that. They will be followed up.
Before I leave the United States perhaps the House will bear with me on just two matters, not in the same sense essentially political, to which I would refer and which I think may be of interest. The chief public occasion which it fell to my lot to attend in the United States was a Joint Session of the two Houses of the Legislature of Maryland, and after my speech in that historic Senate House, the Legislature were good enough to pass a Resolution in the most generous terms towards the people of this country. Not only did they pass one, but a number of other State Legislatures pursued the same course and I think the House would wish me to read the Resolution passed by the Maryland Legislature, so that they may, if they will, endorse my action in expressing thanks for its terms. This is what it says:
Be it resolved by the House of Delegates of Maryland, in solemn assembly gathered, that it hereby formally registers for itself and for the citizens of Maryland whom it represents, its deep respect for the impressive battle given by our valiant Britannic Ally in her mortal conflict with the Axis Powers, a respect firmly based upon the known qualities of the British people, their unconquerable resolution in the cause which they and we deem to be right, their refusal to admit thoughts of defeat even in their darkest hours, their phenomenal energy, their astonishing self-discipline, their noble effort to cling to the paths of honour despite the indecencies of the enemy; in a word, upon all those traits by which a people comes to be known as great and to be admired accordingly.
Be it further resolved that rather than commend the example to the people of Maryland as has been done so often and so warmly in the past, the House of delegates takes this occasion to express to the people of Britain through her Foreign Minister the highest compliment of which it feels capable, the sincere desire to emulate their greatness;
And be it further resolved that these Resolutions be spread upon the journal and that the Speaker through his Excellency Governor O'Conor deliver a copy of these Resolutions to Mr. Eden in person.
I think the House will feel that that is a very generous message. I wish that time allowed me to read the others, but it does not.
One other experience I would refer to. For two or three days I was fortunate enough to go down into the deep South, in the company of General Marshall, the much-esteemed Chief-of-Staff of the American Forces. There, I saw a very large number of camps, containing, most of them, tens of thousands of airmen and soldiers. I was deeply impressed with what I saw and with the spirit of these young men. Their equipment and their accommodation were first-class, as one would expect in the United States. It was also a pleasing experience to see Sherman tanks firing, even if it was only at bits of wood. But all that one would expect to be good. What was remarkable was the spirit of those men. I am convinced that nowhere in the world is there a finer reservoir of really first-class material than among these troops and airmen in the United States of America.
One final experience. For a day I was able to go to see something of the American naval forces and also of these bases, in the company of an old and valued friend of Anglo-American relations, Colonel Knox, and there I had an experience which was especially stimulating. It was to see one of our greatest battleships, which has been repaired in an American yard, now almost complete and to see her crew, and to learn from them, at first hand, how splendid during many months had been their relations and their friendship with their comrades in the United States. There is immense value for the future in the work done here and in America for understanding between our two Services. My closing impression of the United States was one of a young and vigorous people, wholehearted in the struggle and determined to work together with the other United Nations, in the war and in the peace.
Now for a few minutes, if the House will allow me, I want to travel to Canada, where I spent three days in Ottawa at the invitation of the Prime Minister. They were very crowded days. I had the opportunity of meeting those responsible for Canada's truly amazing war effort. I had two meetings with the War Committee, which corresponds roughly with our own War Cabinet here at home. I told them of my talks in Washington and we exchanged views on many matters of common interest to us. Then I addressed a Joint Session of the Canadian Parlia-


ment—members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons—and there, I regret to have to report, that, all unwittingly, I committed a gross breach of the Censorship rules. I informed the Canadian Parliament that we were now meeting "in another place"; but I did go on to assure them that we were doing so in excellent spirits despite the action of the enemy and the august nature of our new surroundings. I would like once again here to pay our tribute to Canada's record of achievement. I came away with the impression of a great people, steadfast and loyal in the struggle, proud to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and proud, too, of its splendid loyalty in our darkest hour. I am the bearer of a message of good will from the Canadian Parliament, which I would like to read to the House. It was voiced in the concluding words of the Prime Minister's speech. Mr. Mackenzie King said:
In conclusion, Mr. Eden, may I ask you on your return to Britain if you will take with you the most loyal of greetings and expressions of devotion from His Majesty's Canadian subjects to the King and Queen? Will you also take with you the warmest and best wishes to the Prime Minister of Britain? Tell Mr. Churchill how relieved we all were at his speedy recovery after the unfortunate indisposition he suffered on his return from North Africa, and tell him we do hope and pray that he will continue to the end to enjoy the vision, wisdom and the endurance which he has manifested from the beginning in his conduct of the affairs of this war. And tell him, and tell all the people of Britain, that Canada is heart and soul with them in this struggle, and we shall continue so to remain until the fight itself is ended and victory and peace have been achieved.
In my time it has fallen to my lot to visit many foreign capitals, on a variety of missions. It is always difficult to assess the value of such visits. There are always imponderables, incalculable factors, which it is difficult to estimate at that time. I can only say sincerely to the House, that I feel convinced myself that no other mission with which I have been charged has been so fundamentally worth while as this. I have come back, I say frankly, with a different view of the sentiments of the United States towards both this struggle and the post-war period. I

believe that the opportunities that have been opened to us, great as the difficulties are, are wider in scope than I thought possible. If, as a result of these conversations, to however small an extent, I have been able to make a contribution to Anglo-American relations, I shall feel that nothing could have been more worth while.

Mr. Greenwood: May I repeat what I said a little earlier—but what was not then heard—how warmly we welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House of Commons; and may I also say how much we welcome the statement he has made to us to-day? It would, in my view, be inappropriate to pursue the matter further at this stage; but I would say that, in my view, and, I feel, in the view of the House, this visit has been very well worth while, and much good may come of it. One can only hope that the visit of the Secretary of State of the United States over here will be equally fruitful in co-operation. I would just suggest this point to my right hon. Friend. He has touched very lightly on many points. Perhaps before long there may be opportunities for the House to discuss some of them.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir: I shall be glad to consider that.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Prime Minister still feel that that statement which has been made by the Foreign Secretary does not contain many matters which would be worthy of some discussion in the House? [Interruption.] I am suggesting that perhaps the Prime Minister might revise his view that this statement would be a non-controversial one; and that it might be discussed.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): It would be better if that could be done on some particular occasion.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL)

Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills—Professor Savory.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1943

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (PROPAGANDA)

Mr. McGovern: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House is gravely concerned at the partiality of the propaganda and choice of propagandists by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the way in which it is being directed on totalitarian lines and is of opinion that the Government should take the necessary steps to secure that more opportunity should be given for the propagation of the different shades of opinion on political, social, religious and medical questions so that the Corporation should be used as an instrument of democracy instead of one for the creation of an authoritarian régime in this country.
There is a tremendous amount of discussion in this country over the way that the B.B.C. conducts its propaganda and selects its propagandists to speak over the wireless. Our view is that in September, 1939, there was registered the end of that part of democracy that the people of Great Britain had won from the financiers and big business in their upward struggle through the vale of tears and the shadow of death, and that May, 1940, ushered in a complete political dictatorship, under the present Prime Minister. An essential part of the Prime Minister's control and dictatorship was to secure complete authority over the B.B.C. and the Press. He managed to get the Press behind him by placing many of the Press lords in important Government posts, and then he appointed one who had been a close political friend and associate as Minister of Information, in order that he should control the B.B.C. The appointment of this new Minister came as a great surprise to the Members of this House, if one may judge from the expressions one heard in the Lobby, in the smoke-rooms, and in all the places where Members of Parliament congregate. We recognised that he

would surely give a recording of his master's instructions and show 100 per cent. efficiency with the blue pencil.
We realise that the Government are bound to have, both in peace and in war, a fairly large proportion of time for political and military matters, in order to weld together the forces of the nation, which they claim to have had, and which I believe them to have had, behind them in the prosecution of the war. The Minister of Information stated, in reply to a Question some time ago on the change of Directors-General:
I should like to pay tribute to the arduous work of the retiring Director-General over a period of four years, during the latter half of which the services of the B.B.C. have developed into a most potent weapon of war. I have full confidence in the ability of his two successors to fulfil their onerous task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th Feb., 1942; col. 1164, Vol. 377.]
That states clearly and definitely that the Government realise that it is essential that they should use those instruments for the welding together, as I said, of every instrument for the prosecution of the war. Why we question the authority of the B.B.C. and the Minister of Information to conserve for members of the Government and their "Yes" men of the various political parties the right of expression through the B.B.C., over the wireless, is that it is so often maintained that this is a democracy. If we were told that this was a complete State instrument whereby no person was allowed to express his views unless they conformed to the views of the Prime Minister and the Government, then we would understand that no person who held diverse views would be allowed to express them over the wireless. But it is so insistently stated that this is a democracy—and some people are inclined to believe it, strange to say—and, therefore, when they accept a statement that this is a democracy they wonder whether, in a democracy, only one side is allowed to express its point of view. Of that there is very little doubt, and there can be very little difference, when the various parties in this House who have come together for the express purpose of waging war in a successful manner on the totalitarian Powers, have their spokesman nominated by the Whips' Office in each case because they are regarded as safe, capable men to be allowed to express their views over the wireless. We take the view that it is a contradic-


tion of the statement that this is a democracy. We understand that in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy and in the Soviet Union there is no liberty for the subject to express anything contrary to the authoritarian regime, and therefore we know that there is no such term of democracy accepted in the general mind of the public of this country as relating to those particular countries.
We are asking the Minister of Information why those who hold different points of view should not be allowed to express their points of view over the wireless through representative spokesmen from time to time on the various subjects which the Amendment enumerates and on others which would readily come to the minds of many Members of this House. Surely, if the system of collective political and personal security has welded them together and allowed those who backed the League of Nations and others who called it a "Midsummer Night's Dream," those who backed unity and those who demanded war at any price; those who called General Franco a gallant Christian gentleman and others who deemed him to be a bloody upstart and a Fascist; those who refused to give the life of a single Birmingham boy to help to save Abyssinia and who later were prepared to sacrifice thousands of British lives to recover Abyssinia; and, lastly, those completely opposed to the Government politically and economically and those who came together with the capitalists, financiers, landlords and trade union leaders—if all those diverse elements who can weld themselves together into a unity holding different points of view are allowed the liberty of expression over the wireless, I put it to the Minister in this House that he cannot claim that Britain is a democracy if the Press, the B.B.C. or any other instrument is welded together for the complete publication of news which suits the particular case of the Government of the day.
I have no doubt at all in my own mind that the Minister was personally selected because of his adaptability and his ability to see that the proper thing was done in selecting or, as he would deny selection, at least in safeguarding the position by seeing that the officers and individuals who selected them did so from the kind of people whom I have indicated. There are hon. Members of political parties who have been on the wireless from time to

time, and their bias is so complete that I have actually heard them—in the "Week at Westminster"—giving not the terms of an Amendment or even a word of the speech of the individual who moved it, but arguments against it, although they did not give one word that was said in favour of it. It was like going to a show ground to try and knock down Aunt Sallys that were unseen. That bias is found in the representatives of all political parties who speak over the wireless. Take, for example, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown). He used to be before he returned to the House of Commons a sort of white-haired boy of the Government. He put over propaganda which was nauseating to me. I loathed his addresses and speeches over the wireless, but since the hon. Member won Rugby against the Government he has not been on the wireless on a single occasion. Take the case of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), whom we were told in this House had broadcast in various ways 132 times. He claims to be independent, but just how independent he is of the Government I would like to know. A man who has been given the liberty of making 132 broadcasts, continuing at the same rate has probably 150 or 160 broadcasts to his credit up to date. There are capable Members of this House—I could name them—who are not selected because they have either shown antagonism to the Government or a line that does not commend itself to the Government. Take hon. Members like the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr), on the Labour side, on religious and political questions, the hon. Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie), the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). [An HON. MEMBER: "He has broadcast."] I could name many other Members of this House, not all on the Labour side, but Members on the Conservative side, who have shown a critical attitude towards either the Prime Minister or to some phases of the direction of the war, and they are carefully pushed aside by the Government.
That is not an evidence of democracy. On the political side we get this one-sided hash all the time. It shows a complete lack of faith in the democratic institution. If it is so obvious that your war is for democracy and freedom and not for some


ulterior motives of the commercial magnates and financiers, the Government need not be afraid to allow an expression of opinion by those who hold different views. I admit there are certain decencies that would have to be observed on the wireless in putting over a case and that there is a certain security in having some person who supervises the speeches or the papers that are read over the wireless. But apart from that, to go on humbugging the people of this country and of the world into the belief that they are fighting for something that does not exist and then carefully to select all the "Yes"-men of the country to give expression to the point of view suitable to the Government, and to push aside all others, is distasteful in the extreme and shows not only a lack of confidence in democracy, but a poor understanding indeed of what democracy means in times of either peace or war.
Let us take religious expression. I hear it continually over the wireless, and I am confident that those who are selected to put over prayers and religious texts are chosen because they are safe, patriotic men, who will bless the 8,000-lb. bomb and hope it will do the work of God in true and proper fashion and who will pay homage towards the victory of arms over human beings. I have listened to the nauseating lectures and so-called sermons of religious people who pay homage to brute force while at the same time posing as emulaters of the Master in his work on earth. No religious expression of pacifism or adherence to the gospel of the lowly Nazarene is allowed. All these statements broadcast over the wireless are by men who have been carefully selected by someone in authority who has given instructions that no person who expresses anything different shall be allowed to broadcast.
Often I listen to the medical men who broadcast in the mornings. It is amazing how they have discovered that every article of food which cannot be procured during the war has no food value, while every horrible, rotten substitute that is on the market to-day at a fabulous and extortionate price is being boosted as having greater food value than eggs, milk and butter. That is a fact, because I have listened very carefully. I have commented time and time again about the

way in which the medical profession can adapt itself to the desire of the politicians. Here is a case of a noble profession prostituting its professional ability and knowledge for the purpose of backing up a Government which, in waging war, tries to make people believe that margarine is better than butter—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is"]—and that lard is better than either. Well, I will have the hon. Member's butter. There is something behind all this. We know that propaganda in Germany took the view that guns were more essential than butter, although it did not try to convince the German people that they could eat the guns, but at least definite propaganda of that sort went on there, and everything that Germany has done in relation to the war and propaganda has been successful in deluding the British public into the belief that all was well in the arena.
One can understand and appreciate that the Government have a job to do and that in war they must have regard to the security of the State. No one would feel any antagonism to the Government on that account, but in the case of refugees they are prepared to allow every sort of bogus refugee who comes to this country with a story to tell and sell to broadcast it and tell all he is supposed to know. Such refugees are given full scope, especially if they put over a story that is likely to arouse greater antagonism and will, in the Government's opinion, improve the morale of the people fighting this war. But what about a refugee who comes to this country, who thinks war is wrong and who wants to tell the truth? He would be pushed aside in favour of another person who could tell a story, no matter how dull it might be. Indeed, such a refugee has to be careful not to express antagonism to the war lest the Home Secretary detain him under Regulation 18B. Many who feel antagonism to the war are compelled to say things which they do not believe.
There is room in this country for discussion of political subjects over the wireless. We have our Brains Trust, for example, which is beginning to be looked upon as a sort of comedy. People are looking to the Brains Trust for a good laugh. Members of the Brains Trust think they are fitted to answer every question under the sun, but many of their answers cause even a humble person like myself to have a good laugh. We hear a man like Professor Joad,


whose antagonism to the last war led him along the path of conscientious objection and who, now he is too old, has become the leading light of the Ministry of Information to show other people how to do the things he shirked doing when he was of the proper age——

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I must point out that Professor Joad has no connection with the Ministry of Information.

Mr. McGovern: That is a very thin statement indeed.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister could stop him if he wanted to.

Mr. McGovern: If the Minister wants to dissociate himself from everybody who speaks over the wireless, then he is not facing up to the responsibility which the House expects him to face. This House has a right to have some form of control over the political speeches which are put over the wireless. Take, for instance, the case of the Prime Minister's recent broadcast. There never was a greater political racket than was disclosed by the Prime Minister during the 45–50 minutes he spoke over the air. Every political side in this country had a right to reply to that broadcast. Let me quote an extract from the "Town Crier," a Labour paper from Birmingham:
Recently the B.B.C. gave a summary of a House of Commons Debate on the Vote of the Ministry of Pensions. The second speaker in the Debate was the Chairman of the Labour Party's Pension Committee, Mr. Bellenger, and other Labour speakers took part, but the B.B.C. summary, apart from the Minister's statement, mentioned only two speeches, both of these being by Tory Members. The Prime Minister took 55 minutes of B.B.C. time to make a purely political speech in which he attacked, by inference, the Labour Opposition leader, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, but so far no move has been made to give Mr. Greenwood the freedom of the microphone to reply to the Premier. It is about time that the Parliamentary. Labour Party made a strong protest against the Tory bias of the B.B.C.
That is a statement from a respectable and responsible source. The Prime Minister, in his broadcast, gave an indication that there was nothing to hope for from him or his Government during the period of the war. It was a tremendous slap to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary, who had previously made two apologetic speeches in this House trying to infer that the Beveridge

plan was being properly considered and that action consistent with the financial position of the country would be taken at the earliest moment. The Prime Minister's speech was a complete turn round. Whether the war lasted another four or five years, he indicated that no hope of social reform on the line's of the Beveridge Report could be expected. It is always the same story—"after the war." The Prime Minister's speech did not represent even the smallest percentage of the views of the working population of this country or the serving men in the Forces who believe that if the Government are fighting for freedom and democracy and safeguards for human life and social security after the war, their foundations must be laid during the war. We are entitled to make the request that all political sections in this House should be allowed to reply to the Prime Minister's speech. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say, "I will speak on Sunday," for the Home Secretary to say, "I will speak on Tuesday," and for the Minister of Pensions to say, "I will speak on Thursday"—

Mr. MacLaren: What about Vic Oliver?

Mr. McGovern: Well, Vic Oliver has some value. I think he is a very good comedian. Other comedians seem to be out of their depth entirely when they try to do his sort of stuff. The form of authoritarian régime in this country that allows the Minister of Information, the Prime Minister, a member of the Government or any other Member the Whips have selected as a safe and secure man, to broadcast, shows that no real democracy exists and that no individual will be allowed to express an opposite point of view. With regard to India, for instance, the events in that country are followed in England, America, Australia, and Canada—throughout the world, indeed—with a very intense interest. People everywhere have displayed a very intense interest in the tremendous tragedy that is taking place in India. Many statements about India have been made over the wireless, some of them by men who opposed every form of progress that was being made even by Conservative Governments in this country in regard to India, and yet those people express over the wireless their point of view as being the point of view of the British nation. It is very hard for any Minister


to tell what is the popular opinion in this country concerning India and whether the Government are carrying out the democratic instincts and wishes of the great British public in regard to India. How many speakers from among the Indian Congress representatives in Great Britain have been allowed to speak over the wireless. Many of them are capable men. If a number of representative Indian people in this country were to make their contributions over the wireless, or even if debates on the subject were arranged instead of things like the Brains Trust, it might be of advantage to India, to this country and to the world, and it might prove to be a solution for those dark and troublous problems in India. But no opportunity of that sort is given. Only that little conclave of people having authority are allowed to express what in many cases is not the British will and the popular point of view.
Take, for instance, the question of refugees. The Government have traded on the cruelties and horrors inflicted upon the Jews by the Hitlerite Govt. The Government are continually using that aid to get popular opinion aroused in favour of the war. If one goes to conscientious objectors' tribunals to defend young men who have conscientious objections such as the Home Secretary had in the last war, some sturdy old Tory on the bench asks the question, "Do you not think you ought to fight in defence of the Jews?" I have heard that question put on scores of occasions, exploiting the suffering of the Jews. Night after night we hear reports over the wireless of most abominable things that are said about Jews. How many Jewish speakers have been allowed on the wire-les to reply to the charges made from time to time both in Germany and in this country and so to put the matter in a proper perspective? No speakers of that sort are allowed. It is only for us to exploit for purposes of the war the public imagination and the public antagonism to brutality; it is not for the Government to allow anybody to speak for the victims, just as they would not allow "Professor Mamlock" to be shown in this country before the war, but only later when it suited their own purpose. So it is with the treatment of the Jews of Europe. That treatment is exploited, but there is never a voice allowed over the wireless

to reply to the accusations that are made against Jews.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member is making the most extraordinary assertions. Representative members of the Jewish community, joined by Christians, have done everything in their power to condemn the bestial treatment of Jews in Germany and elsewhere. The hon. Member is really emulating Dr. Goebbels.

Mr. McGovern: I leave that to the British Dr. Goebbels. The right hon. Gentleman has not got the point I made. It is that accusations are made nightly over the German wireless against the Jewish people throughout the world, and I say that no representative Jew in this country is allowed to broadcast a reply to those accusations. I have listened to most of the broadcasts. One can hear the Dean of Canterbury and other people protesting, but that is all part of the general exploitation, for purposes of fighting the war, of the suffering of these people. Let me take another case—the reports that are given of the bombing of Germany, Paris, Antwerp, Italy. In the broadcasts there is gloating over the massacre of human beings in those areas. One hears stories told of whole buildings going up in the air after being hit by 4,000-lb. or 8,000-lb. bombs. These stories cause a revulsion of feeling to any decent persons who hear them over the wireless. It can only be said now that all our moral protests against the bombing of London were made because we had not a sufficient number of planes and that once we had sufficient planes and bombs, our moral objections went into the limbo, and we followed the German method of dealing with the civilian population.

Mr. Willink: Will the hon. Member make clear whether he is asking the Government to put pressure on the B.B.C. to allow him to express opinions of this sort over the wireless?

Mr. McGovern: I am not concerned with myself. I should be satisfied if well selected individuals from various parts of the House and from outside—even outside the medical profession and orthodox religion—were allowed to express their opinions. I do not think many members of the medical profession or of orthodox religion are capable of putting over a fair and honest case for their professions,


because they have become so embittered and so enthusiastic about the war effort. As for myself, I am not worried about speaking over the wireless, because there are other platforms throughout the country from which I can give my message.

Mr. Herbert Beaumont: Does the hon. Gentleman desire that the views he is now expressing shall be expressed over the wireless?

Mr. McGovern: Certainly. Why not? Does the hon. Member want to suppress me?

Mr. Beaumont: I think that before views are put out by the B.B.C. they should be substantiated.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Does the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) say that all views, without any distinction, if held by a reasonable number of people, should be expressed over the wireless—for instance, British Fascist ideas or anti-Semitic ideas? Neither the hon. Member nor I are anti-Semites, but there are people who are. Does he think they should have the right to express their views over the wireless?

Mr. McGovern: No matter how extreme a point of view might be, I would have it brought out into the open and answered by competent people. I have no objection to a Fascist telling his story of what the world would be like under Fascism, and then having some representative person replying and putting the proper case in an intelligent way. You had far better have that than have people going about in the dark tearing down bills and making chalk marks on walls, and going into tea rooms and whispering all sorts of things about some sections of the community. If you drive something underground you make it more dangerous than if you allow a free and complete discussion above ground. There are many views that I hear propagated from which I dissociate myself, but I would never try to prevent people from presenting those views.

Captain Nicholson: Even in war-time?

Mr. McGovern: Even in war-time, consistent with what I may call national security. I would not allow people to go

into other questions than those I have mentioned—political, religious and general questions.

Miss Rathbone: Does the hon. Member ignore the fact that all these views, including his own and those of the Duke of Bedford, are put forward in weekly journals and in the Press in every kind of way? People who do not want to read those views need not read them. The difference between stating views in print and stating them over the wireless is that over the wireless it means forcing views that are only held by a tiny minority on to people who want to get something else.

Mr. Stokes: They can switch off the wireless.

Mr. McGovern: If any hon. Members take the view that what I say in the House and on public platforms should be suppressed, they are entitled to hold that view. If the hon. lady thinks that, she is entitled to her view.

Miss Rathbone: I did not suggest anything of the sort. What I said was that we have freedom of the Press. The difference between the Press and the B.B.C. is that in the Press people can select what they want to read, but with the wireless people turn it on to wait for the news, for instance, and suddenly there bursts upon them views which they loathe or to which they are liable to fall a victim. These views are forced upon them.

Mr. McGovern: The hon. Lady is suggesting that no publicity should be given over the wireless to some points of view. I disagree with her fundamentally. I have never heard the hon. Lady express any views in the House with which I have agreed, but I would allow her even to speak over the wireless. I would even listen to her, as I listen to her in the House. I think the country is entitled to know every point of view. Otherwise, do not have this humbug about democracy. If you cannot trust the people of a so-called democratic country to hear points of view that are different from your own, you had better shut up shop and declare for pure totalitarianism.
I want now to talk about the appeals that are continually being made over the wireless to people in various countries to revolt. The type of revolt is never specified. I say that people holding views


such as are held by my hon. Friends and myself could appeal in a much better manner to the people in the underground movements on the Continent than can Tory Diehards. When Tory Diehards make those appeals it is sheer hypocrisy. They do not want revolts. The boy who shot Admiral Darlan was quickly put before a firing squad. I am sure that would not bring an enthusiastic response to the appeals to the workers to revolt. My hon. Friends and I have a particular point of view. We believe that the most glorious and speedy ending of this war would be by the revolt of the peoples on the Continent. Therefore, an appeal from those of us who are not in the Government or of the Government, but who have a distinct point of view in what is called a democratic country, would at least carry some weight which is not carried by the hypocritical phrases and appeals that are made from time to time over the wireless.
I claim that this is a totalitarian instrument which is being wielded for the benefit of the Government, and in particular at the dictation of the Prime Minister. Everyone comes to heel and conforms to his wishes. Everyone seems afraid to face up to him. He appoints in every phase of public life those who may be depended upon to carry out his own wishes. That should not be. This should be a national instrument for the propagation of every phase of view. In sport, medicine, religion and politics all types of individuals should be allowed to express their opinions, and, unless the B.B.C. is rapidly and radically changed, we are going headlong into the same mistake that was made on the Continent by the complete control, through the State machine, of this instrument, which should be an instrument of the popular will.

Mr. Price: May I ask your Ruling, Sir, on the scope of the Debate? Can we have a general discussion on the work of the B.B.C., or must it be confined within the narrow view expressed by the Mover of the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think it must be the narrow view.

Mr. Stephen: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not exactly hopeful that the majority of the House will be prepared to accept it, but I think Members on all sides will be grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to discuss the propaganda and the propagandists of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think there will be general agreement as to the importance of broadcasting as an instrument for the creation and the moulding of opinion. Obviously there must be many millions who listen in from day to day, and it is of the utmost importance that broadcasting should be used in a democratic community so as to further the interests of the whole people rather than create an opinion to satisfy a small clique of the ruling class. I think the future historian of the great war will certainly chronicle the fact that one of the vital errors of the Governments in the Axis countries was the way in which they tried to prevent people hearing what was being said in other lands. In this country any citizen is free to twirl the knob and listen in to Germany, Italy or any other country. For a time people were a bit worried as to whether we should not follow the example of the Axis countries. There was a notorious broadcaster on the German radio whom my hon. Friend was responsible for nicknaming Lord Haw-haw. Millions of people here listened in to Haw-haw's broadcasts, but in a short time most of them got sick of the brazen, bragging voice of this broadcaster from Germany, and his lies made no impression on the morale of the people, so the policy of allowing us to listen in to whatever station we like has been justified.
But in our opinion the limitation upon the freedom of opinion which has been adopted in the way in which our broadcasting stations have been used is having a bad effect. For example, there is the case of the Orpheus Choir. Their conductor, Sir Hugh Robertson, was always being asked to broadcast before the war, but when it was discovered that his views on the war were not considered by the Government to be sound, the Orpheus Choir went off the air. It was put on again by the Prime Minister's instructions, but their opportunities for broadcasting are not anything like on the same scale as before the war. It may be said, of course, that all musical programmes have had to be cut down because of the war, and I am not questioning that, but


it is still evident that there is a certain amount of victimization of this choir because of the anti-war views of the conductor.
Then our Amendment draws attention to the way in which even religious opinions must be always of the same type or else there is no room for them at the microphone. I wonder that the Parliamentary Secretary himself does not do something in this respect, in view of his immediate activities before he went into the Government and the propaganda that he carried on, which was not the kind of propaganda of which I, with my religious outlook on life, was in the least appreciative.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I know the hon. Member is a great authority on clerical matters, but I would point out to him that Rationalism is an attitude of mind and not a religion.

Mr. Stephen: I am sorry that I have not the time to debate this but the Rationalists' arrogant statements could be easily countered by people with a religious outlook on life, and I am confident that his Rationalism is as much a religion with him as my own belief in Christian doctrines is to me. There is an eminent Scottish clergyman, one of the leading minds in the religious community, who was often at the microphone.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Member now identifying his cause with unsafe religions?

Mr. Stephen: Evidently the British Broadcasting Corporation decided that he was unsafe because he had become a disciple of Dick Sheppard. He took the anti-war point of view and consequently was no longer a welcome visitor at the microphone in war-time.

Mr. Harold Nicolson: In war-time.

Mr. Stephen: One of the Governors of the Corporation interrupts me to say "In war-time." This distinguished minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be considered a safe person to speak about religion to the people of Britain. The hon. Member has given us our whole case, if we needed it, by his interruption.
I pass from religion to the social and political instance that I wish to bring before the House. I take the broadcasts of Mr. J. B. Priestley. It was fully established, I think, that of all the people who went to the microphone to give a Postscript to the people of this country there was no individual who did it better or who aroused more interest than Mr. Priestley. Hon. Members might not like a lot of the things he said, and I did not agree with his point of view in many respects. His loyalty to the vigorous prosecution of the war could not be questioned. There was nothing in his statements about getting on with the war as thoroughly as possible that could be objected to. Unfortunately, however, he also brought in the idea that when millions of people were being called upon to make sacrifices they should have something to look forward to in the way of a new Britain and great social changes at the end of the war. "Colonel Blimp" could not stand for that, and so the instruction went out, and Mr. Priestley ceased to do these Postscripts. The B.B.C. was still willing to employ his services, and while we in this country are not allowed to hear him and cannot generally get him on our sets, Mr. Priestley is still broadcasting on the North American programmes.
Apparently what he is saying about the new world to the Americans will not do any damage, but if people in Camlachie, Shoreditch and other parts of the country were to hear these disturbing doctrines about the great new operative commonwealth at the end of the war in which people would serve not for profit but would give their services to the common weal, it might do harm, and therefore it is not allowed. So Mr. Priestley went off the air and this free institution, this instrument for the creation of democratic opinion, continued on its way with other people to do the talks. They have a terrible job. They try one and then try another, but all the people they get do not make much of it. They now generally fall back upon some man from the Services to give an account of something that has happened in the war sphere. I am not questioning the usefulness of that and the right of people to hear from men who have been through experiences in the field. It is not, however, always advisable to shove into the middle of the news bulletin a despatch from somebody


in the desert describing the weather there. I am not objecting to the correspondents with the Forces sending their messages from the sphere of action, but the middle of the news bulletin is not exactly the place for them. Possibly the B.B.C. think that the people would not otherwise listen to them and that they are willing to keep on listening because of their desire to hear the other news.
Referring again to the political side, there was the action of the Corporation with regard to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown). He was their white-haired boy when he was not challenging the point of view of the Government, but when he became critical of the way in which the Government were handling things and fought a constituency and won it on that point of view, the B.B.C. said "That is enough of you, Brown."

Captain G. Nicholson: If the hon. Member for Rugby were here, I do not think that he would quite confirm that.

Mr. Stephen: I know I sometimes make violent statements, but I generally make sure of my facts. I consulted the hon. Member for Rugby yesterday and asked him whether he had been on the air since he won Rugby, and he said that he had not. The impression I had from him was that the Corporation had no use for him. I gathered that from the way in which he spoke. I may have had a mistaken impression. At any rate, he was frequently on the air, and he is not on it now.

Mr. Thurtle: There seems to be a slight discrepancy between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment about the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown). I gathered from the hon. Member that he wished that the hon. Member for Rugby could give further broadcasts, yet the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovem) made a great point of the exploitation of emotion by these heart-searing accounts of the sufferings of refugees. It was on that kind of propaganda that the hon. Member for Rugby built up his reputation.

Mr. Stephen: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary could have heard any of the broadcasts of the hon. Member for Rugby. I agree that they were generally

somewhat hysterical outbursts, but they were outbursts about the need for the effective prosecution of the war. They had not to do with refugees at all. I am sorry that the Minister of Information is so badly served; he has not even information about that subject. At any rate, I think I can make out the case that the Corporation is being used to put over a certain point of view, what I may call the safe point of view for capitalism and property interests. I am not pleading that the Corporation should allow people to go to the microphone and broadcast a strong pacifist or anti-war appeal or anything like that. I believe that in a sufficiently intelligent world that would be good, sound broadcasting, but it would be asking too much to put it forward here.
What I am asking is that this instrument should not be used as if it belonged to the Tory Party, but that it should give liberty to different shades of opinion to express themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary thought that I was not in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston. We are pot robots, and we differ in many instances. I would not ascribe so much responsibility to the Minister of Information for the B.B.C. as is often done. It would be far better if this service were under the complete control of the Minister and that we got rid of these so-called independent governors. They are generally the sort of people whom we had to get rid of at the beginning of the nineteenth century, people like the younger sons of the Tory Party or people in need of something that is really a pension. This service would be far better as a Government service like the Post Office. The Post Office carries all our letters; it does not seek to carry only the letters of the people who would be approved by the Prime Minister as sound on the war. They carry all our letters, whatever our views may be. If the B.B.C. were a real public service and under the control of the Government, I believe that there is sufficient power in this House to see that an opportunity was given to the different shades of opinion to express themselves. We have that opportunity in this House. I hope that the Minister of Information will take a greater grip on the working of this Corporation and will not say, "Do not come to me about it; I have enough to do without interfering with those queer people who run


the Corporation. Write to the Brains Trust about it." I wonder what is thought of the standard of intelligence in this country that an hour should be given every week for questions and answers that are boasted to be impromptu. If one puts a question, one wants an intelligent and informed answer from somebody who is fully acquainted with the subject. Instead of that, we get the ravings of these people on the Brains Trust. If their intelligence is a measure of the intelligence of the governors of the B.B.C., no wonder the propaganda of this country is as bad as it is and is being used to create a nation of robots instead of a nation of thinking people.

Mr. Pickthorn: It has been my good fortune more than once to have to follow the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), and to-day I agreed with much that both of them said, though On the whole, if I may take the liberty of a candid friend, I thought they were not in all respects quite up to form. I thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Camlachie, putting into modern prose, the case of Milton's "Areopagitica" for complete freedom, was very impressive; but then he turned to criticise the Brains Trust because the Brains Trust was not good enough. I quite agree with him that the Brains Trust approaches the contemptible, except perhaps on one occasion (when I was a member of it) it did not justify his contempt, but in the main I agree with him that it approaches the contemptible; but if that is the reason he wants it suppressed, he really is cutting away the whole of the rest of his argument, because I do not think there is any doubt that the Brains Trust is a popular feature, to which a great many people like listening.

Mr. Stephen: I do not want to suppress it. I only think it is contemptible; but I am quite willing that this contemptible thing should go on.

Mr. Pickthorn: That certainly was not the impression that one gained from the hon. Member's argument. One of his main charges against the B.B.C. was that it did put out this contemptible stuff. I also thought that the hon. Member for Shettleston was a little unfair, in a typical piece of propaganda. To talk about "the

sword of the Spirit" is one thing, but to talk about the blessing of 8,000 lb. bombs to do the work of God is rather a different thing. There is no real difference between the purpose for which swords are used and the purpose for which the bombs are used, and it really is a piece of propaganda, an attempt to jump people into trying to agree with you and not persuading them to follow an argument, to object to priests blessing 8,000 lb. bombs. I will not weary the House by reading the passage from Ephesians, which I need hardly remind hon. Members speaks about the sword of the Spirit, and the breast-plate of righteousness and the whole armour of God, and so on. There is nothing new about spiritual leaders using weapons of war as metaphors for that of which they approve, and it may be there is nothing new about their blessing munitions.

Mr. McGovern: Although I object to any of the ministers blessing the 8,000-lb. bombs, my point is that other people's views have been excluded—other ministers and priests were excluded who did not take that point of view.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry that I cannot talk as quickly as the hon. Member thinks, because that was the next point to which I was coming. It is highly important, no doubt, that we should have the maximum liberty of discussion, nobody believes in that more fully than I do, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are really taking an unfair advantage of the rest of us in this connection—they really are, though I am sure it is unintentional. How do you lose a war? I will not say that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care whether we lose or whether we win, because that would be doing them a great injustice. They are as fond of their country and their friends as any of the rest of us, and they would suffer as deeply if this country lost, but as an intellectual proposition it is all one to them. All wars are bad in their view, and this war is equally bad whatever the result of it. That gives them an advantage over the rest of us who do not feel like that. But how do you lose a war? You lose a war when there, are enough people who are on your side, or who ought to be on your side, who think the war is futile. That is when you lose it. The enemy tries to persuade them of that by knocking their heads off, and it is trying us here a little


high to say there ought to be complete freedom through our own machinery for citizens of our own country to assist in that persuasion. I would not have stopped Sir Hugh Roberton conducting an orchestra, or whatever it is he does, but as far as the logic of the thing goes there is much to be said for such prohibition. There is not the least doubt that a man who gets his prestige, his position in society, his chance of influencing others from the fact that he conducts an orchestra and is known by millions of people to do it—who think he does it well, I do not know whether he does it well or ill—and is at the same time a man who thinks war is futile—to allow public machinery to be used in time of war for increasing or preserving that man's prestige is asking a very great deal from those of us who think that it is necessary and essential to win the war, that wars are not all futile and that bombs and swords may be properly used.
I wish to turn to a more general question. It is one over the discussion of which we are always in great difficulty. So far it has been done in one of two ways by hon. Members opposite. One way is by making a lot of general charges; and however convinced the speaker may be that he is right about his general impression, that does not much convince those who start with opposite prejudices. Another way is by giving lists of speakers. I have done that myself in the past. I believe that I have done it fairly and that I have proved my point, though perhaps no one else thought so. The list-of-speakers method has been used by hon. Members opposite, and I am bound to say that I think it was used rather unfairly. We had all that stuff about J. B. Priestley and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) and we were asked why did not we get a little more of the one and a little less of the other. These people were made by the B.B.C. They got their seats through the B.B.C. Of course they did. I will undertake to say that if the B.B.C. will allow me to address this country once a week for over six years, as it did the present Member for Bridgwater, that in the seventh year, if anyone will resign his seat, I will fight a by-election in his constituency and get twice as big a poll as he—barring, perhaps, the constituency of the Prime Minister, if he is still alive and we are

still winning. But that is the way these chaps get in. It is claimed that they ought to be given more opportunities of speaking, but the more time on the air that is given to them the less time there is for other people. I believe we have had quite enough of them myself. I should like to present the Minister of Information with a catena of quotations from the books of one of them upon foreign policy.

Mr. Mathers: Could the hon. Member give us some more particulars about his challenge to a by-election?

Mr. Pickthorn: I thought the hon. Member wished to interrupt me for a debating purpose. I think a speaker is entitled now and then to lighten his remarks by a moment of facetiousness, but I cannot give way in order that we may listen to the facetiousness of the hon. Member who rose from the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Mathers: As long as it is a joke it is quite all right.

Mr. Pickthorn: I have spoken of two methods, and I propose to adopt a slightly different method. Instead of talking of general impressions or compiling lists of speakers, which can always be countered by opposing lists of speakers, I propose to try to put the matter in a rather different way. I beg hon. Members opposite not to be prejudiced by the name I am about to utter, but to restrain their prejudices for a moment, if they can, and listen to the first part of the argument. If they do not like it they can always go out or shout me down. I propose to take the way in which the Beveridge Report has been handled, because I think it has been very interesting. Democracy means all sorts of things, and it does not mean the same to me as to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor do I think that we are fighting for democracy in all the senses in which we are said to be fighting for it. I think we are fighting for our own country and the right to choose. Most of us, including myself, will choose democracy, but it is not democracy, directly or absolutely, that we are fighting for.
I think we make a mistake in telling the world it is democracy we are fighting for because the world may take it in the sense which the last two speakers have tried to fasten upon it. Not everybody in Europe by a long chalk thinks democracy in that


sense is worth fighting for. The democracy that any of us want here is the development of an age-old method of government which in this blessed country is something like 1,500 years old. It is government by discussion. Everyone should be able to take it for granted that no great change that much matters to him shall happen without long previous notice, and without an opportunity for everything that can be said for and against that change to be uttered. That is as old as the manorial system, older than the manorial system. I do not know when the manorial system began, but I suppose it was before the Norman Conquest.
That is the distinctive English freedom, that is what matters most to all of us; some of us have thought that by the elaborating and modernising of machinery of late years we have somehow made that complete and perfect and have arrived at the terminus. But that is not the way that anything ever happens in human life. No process ever arrives at its terminus, except in the grave, and what has tended to happen is that the more the machinery for discussion has been elaborated and modernised the more has the temptation been upon Governmental persons to see that a question does not emerge above the surface so far as to be open to discussion until things are already so arranged that only one answer to the question is possible. That is the modern temptation. It is the modern temptation of all countries under all sorts of democracies; whether you have the plebiscitary gangster kind of democracy, the sort of democracy of Hitlerism, or any other, there is a temptation to try to do the thing that way.
I beg hon. Members to believe that if I am now going to talk about the Beveridge Report it is not with any wish to criticise the Beveridge Report. I honestly believe that my opinions would be exactly the same if I were a whole-hog supporter of the Beveridge Report, which I am not, although I am not a whole-hog opponent either. My argument has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the Report. There is perhaps another preliminary remark which I ought to make, and that is that the Minister of Information must, I think, to some extent take responsibility for knowing the newspapers. The B.B.C. and the Ministry of Information are really indistinguishable. If anybody challenges that view I shall have to waste the time of the House by

reading a long chain of quotations from Ministers. Everything that comes to us over the ether comes upon the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister who ought to be on the front bench. The B.B.C. and the Ministry of Information are responsible not only for what is emitted by this machinery but equally, though it may not be quite so obvious, for what is not emitted by it, and though they are not responsible for editing newspapers they are responsible for knowing what the newspapers do. I do not say they are responsible for trying to print everything the newspapers do not print and for not printing anything that the newspapers do print, but they are responsible for trying to see that what goes out on the air shall enable the man who reads one or two newspapers, in conjunction with what he has heard on the air, to be able to make up a fair picture for himself.

Mr. Thurtle: Do I understand my hon. Friend to suggest that the Minister should dictate to editors of newspapers as to what they should put in and what they should leave out of their newspapers?

Mr. Stokes: They do it now.

Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Gentleman understood that, either I said words which I had no intent of uttering, or he must be wholly deaf. The Minister must have information of what the newspapers are publishing, and I said he should take account of it. What is published by his machinery should be affected by what is published or not published by the newspaper machinery. It is a simple argument. There was not a great deal of preliminary boosting of the Beveridge Report on the wireless, although there was some—and this is queer, and is one of the things for which I regret my right hon. Friend's absence from the House—which included a statement by Sir William Beveridge on 21st November—I am awfully sorry, but I have lost the exact words. Oh, I have them now—that
if all Service men and workers knew that the Government had good plans for maintaining employment [after the war], that would be a major contribution to victory.
That was not the line taken by the Minister yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). The Minister did not think it was flattering to our Forces to suggest that they would fight better because of political promises about the post-war


future. I am bound to say that I do not. I think that if that were necessary, it would take us even longer to win this war than it is going to take, and we should be quite certain to lose the next one.

Mr. Stokes: If we have a next one.

Mr. Pickthorn: There was a certain amount of preliminary stuff on the wireless, and a great deal on the day on which the Report was printed. There were Questions answered in this House about how it was being published. I venture to ask the Leader of the House whether we could have an assurance that this Report would not be expounded on the air by those who had had the advantage of reading it before the rest of us had had a chance of reading it, and the Leader of the House said that that would be considered. I do not know how much consideration there was, but it did not have much effect. In fact, that evening there was a long summary of the thing, telling us all about it and, I think, although I've mislaid a note and am not quite sure, there was an interview with Sir William Beveridge. The next evening there was a long talk by Sir William Beveridge and a few days later there was a conversation between Sir William Beveridge and the Lobby Correspondent of the "Daily Herald". There was nothing of a critical nature at all.
I cannot say I have seen all the scripts, and I may be unfair about this. I have not secretaries to file and cross-index and arrange things and so on. I may put something wrongly or misleadingly, but I will try not to. Certainly my impression is—I send for the scripts pretty often, and I have read many of them—that there was practically not at all, all the way through, on the Home Service or the Foreign Services, anything in the way of criticism. There was one conversation in which an American journalist, called Ed. Murrow, took part—there were half a dozen of them altogether, but I happen to remember his name—with a couple of people who said something of a mildly critical kind. On the whole, this thing was put across in such a way that practically everyone was bound to take it. It was like the exercise of skill when the conjurer offers you a card. I do not know how it is done, but with a really good conjurer you always do

take the card he is trying to offer you. Anyone listening to those broadcasts was bound to get the impression that this was the card they were to take and that the thing was to be swallowed whole, and not to be looked at or criticised.
Hon. Members may ask what argument follows from this. The point is that it is all the more necessary from what I said just now that we should have discussion. Sir William Beveridge said on one occasion that we can reach agreement on most things if we can discuss them thoroughly. It is a great blessing in this country that we can do so, as the result of our history. If this kind of vice is followed, thorough discussion becomes impossible. It is all the more necessary that this kind of vice should be avoided where, on the face of the proposal to be considered, there is an obvious monetary advantage to a great number of people. It is more necessary still, or most necessary of all, that this vice should be avoided where there is the risk of the proposal being so laid before the world that we as a nation, as an international entity, may be under some obligation to answer questions either with the word, "Yes," or with the word, "No," before we have even understood the questions ourselves. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for returning to the Chamber. I beg him to consider whether that consideration was given full weight in the handling of this Report.
I have envelopes full of these broadcasts, and I obviously cannot read them all to the House. Perhaps it is hardly fair to expect the House to take my word for it, but I assure hon. Members, that for the first six weeks or more, so far as I can say, there was no attempt at anything in the nature of criticism or question in what was addressed to overseas audiences. It is true that there was put into broadcasts now and then phrases like, "Of course, this is only a proposal," but it was done in a rather perfunctory way. My right hon. Friend is too good a propagandist—it is his business to be—not to know very well the importance of the mood in which you say things, whether you say them in the plain indicative mood—"this is," or "this will be"—or whether you state them in a more conditional way. We started off on 1st December, when the nine main proposals were explained to the world, although nothing was said about the rate of contribution. On the same way, Mr. Gordon


Walker told Europe that want could be abolished. The phrase about abolishing want is slightly interesting because it was first uttered in this connection by an hon. Member of this House a fortnight before the Report was issued.
When the Report was issued it was clear that that phrase was to be the slogan or the leitmotiv of the whole thing; it was to be tied up with the Atlantic Charter and with the Prime Minister's lifelong devotion to social reform: these things were quite obviously the mot d'ordre, the word imposed. Those phrases were repeated in broadcast after broadcast day after day in every sort of language. On 1st December, Mr. Gordon Walker said that the scheme had the support in Britain of the vast mass of our people who were fighting and working. I do not know whether Mr. Walker had then read the Report, and how he found out that the vast mass of our soldiers approved of it I cannot guess. On the next day, Sir William Beveridge spoke. I will only quote from one paragraph of the speech and will leave out all words except those which illustrate the indicative nature of the language. The quotations are:
The main feature is…the scheme applies…it does not apply…everyone will be insured…the benefit will be the same…it will last…the one exception is…the scheme provides…
and so on. You see what I mean. I might slip into that sort of language by mere inadvertence, but not the Minister, and not anybody acting under his aegis or guidance, and not anyone whose script had been vetted by the B.B.C. Those are the nuances, the fine shades, by which the thing is done, by which the pup is sold. Either the Minister and his advisers know nothing about propaganda or they know all about this technique.
I will not go on a great deal longer just on this point, but I hope I have persuaded hon. Gentlemen that every day in December there were different broadcasts all on that line. The thing can be summed up quite fairly in the words of a really responsible journalist. We always speak of journalists in this House as "responsible." Most of them are not awfully, if you define "responsible" accurately. I think we all agree that the "Manchester Guardian" is one of the better newspapers and that the "Manchester Guardian's" Parliamentary report is one of the better features of the "Manchester

Guardian." [An HON. MEMBER: "That is propaganda."] What he says can be taken to be fair, whether we agree with it or not. In the "Manchester Guardian" on 4th December, the correspondent says that he had been talking to a lot of people about the Beveridge Report. That was presumably on 3rd December, two days after the Report came out. He had found in Labour circles frank delight at the way in which it had been handled over the wireless. He added:
It is no disinterested delight. It springs from what is surely a sound inference—that the Government cannot use the Beveridge plan for propaganda purposes on this Continental scale—
that was his phrase—
and then do nothing about it.
That is quite sufficient indication of a fairminded man's impression of the sort of way in which it was done in those first three days. That went on day after day. It was told to the Continent that Britain's great gift to civilisation was to be the Beveridge plan.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. One is about the Chairman of the Committee. Sir William Beveridge is a unique creature. He was Chairman of a Committee, but he was a Chairman without a Committee. He was suspended, like Mahomet. Has there been any previous case where the Chairman of a Committee has given views to the Press beforehand of the sort which were broadcast on 19th November? Has there been any previous case of a B.B.C. broadcast of the views of a Chairman as to the good work his Committee were going to do? Has there been any previous case in which the B.B.C. allowed, or invited on their own, a Chairman to explain his own stuff on the day before his Report came out, or on the day after? Is that the ordinary practice of the B.B.C.? If it is not ordinary practice, did they venture upon this startling innovation—I am sorry that there is only one Governor of the B.B.C. left in the House—entirely by the initiative of the Governors, whose pent-up energy had for years wanted to do something and at last broke all bounds? Or how did it happen?

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer just that one point? He is probably aware, because it was announced in this House as a matter of criticism, that all the newspapers, and


other organs of which the B.B.C. is one, received advance copies of this Report in order that they might study it and make up their minds what kind of leading articles they should write. Surely that is common knowledge.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think that that explanation really answers much. It reminds me of another point I want to make, which is a small one. I am sorry to go back to the explanation my right hon. Friend advanced about the argument that it would only take the equivalent of the cost of x weeks of war. My right hon. Friend told us that it was due to a hurried sub-editor, and that when you are sub-editing you do not always leave out the things you had best leave out. But he was not very hurried. After all, he had had the Report for five days, and he evidently was not very hurried, because he had to go and find out how much the war was costing and put that calculation in. It was not a question of leaving out. That argument really will not do.
I wish to pass from that to ask about the persuading of foreigners; this is what we are interested in. We have been told at various times about the Political Warfare Executive. I do not know whether it exists in that name. [Interruption.] At one time it did not. Is it up again? It does not matter either way. There can be no doubt about the main fact that the Minister is responsible for administration and the Foreign Secretary is responsible for the policy of what is emitted outside, and my right hon. Friend must therefore be responsible for seeing that the Foreign Secretary knows what is going out—I do not mean every script, but if any new line is going to be taken or any loud note is going to be struck, he is responsible for seeing that the Foreign Secretary knows about it beforehand. I should very much like to know whether the Foreign Secretary was fully persuaded before this terrific campaign boosting Beveridge as a way of winning the war. Before that was undertaken was the Foreign Secretary really asked to apply his mind to this question, "Will all Europeans be delighted and cheered by knowing that the first charge upon a British victory is going to be, whatever else happens to the rest of the world that British standards—which have always been the envy of the Continent—are going to be pegged for all

time"? Was that argument put before him? Was he sure it would be wise to do a thing of that sort? Because I am fully persuaded there were reactions to that argument that were very regrettable.
Another point in that connection is a little more difficult to make. It may seem provocative to hon. Members opposite; I ask them to bear with me, because I say this not for the sake of being controversial but because I believe the safety of our country to depend upon it. We are all very apt to assume that all Continentals always like us best when we are standing on our left foot. It is not true. I dare say it should be so, but I am sure the hon. Member for Shettleston will have the candour to agree with me that that really is a mistaken view; and in war-time particularly it is a mistaken view to suppose that everybody on the Continent likes us better when we say we are more interested, or even as much interested, in social questions as in national and strategic and frontier questions; because it is national, strategic and frontier questions that interest you when you are defeated, occupied, make no mistake about that. I hope we are all too old and have lived too long to believe the cant that it does not matter which way the war goes or that war equally afflicts the countries on both sides, win or lose. One war did not teach all of us that. I hope that a second War has taught even the dullest of us that.
When you are defeated or occupied, whether or not you are nominally fighting on the side of the Boche—even, e.g., if you are a Rumanian—you are interested in getting your food to-morrow, but after that it is the national questions, the questions of frontiers, and balance of power, if I may be allowed to use that phrase—these are the questions that interest people. Was the Foreign Secretary really consulted? Was he clear before the ether was mainly used, as it was for weeks, for persuading the world of our interest in social reform? Our wireless boasted something to this effect, "To-day even Tunisia and Stalingrad have been knocked off the headlines by Beveridge." That was what Europe was told.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member really must know that the ether was not monopolised by the Beveridge Report. Has he not the slightest idea as to the number of broadcasts each hour through the week? If he would only realise that his


case is a very good one from his point of view and not overstate it, he would realise there was a very great deal more on the air than Beveridge that week.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I should not say that the ether was monopolised. There were also more or less anodyne talks—there was news, but I will undertake to say this, that the main argumentative message to foreigners for weeks after 1st December was Beveridge. I have one thing only to say before I sit down. I wish to ask Ministers to consider very carefully this question. They have made it difficult for us to know what we are saying to foreigners. They say that if we are interested in any particular matter, we can write and ask for information, but that we cannot be as a regular matter of course given a sample of scripts, or a synopsis of directives, or other pemmicanised indication of the line taken. I think this House ought to have that information. If any Prime Minister wanted it, it would be done for him. But however that may be, there are two parties to communication, there are two parties to propaganda, and this House ought to know just what we are saying to foreigners, and also which foreigners are listening to what we are saying and what effect it is having on their minds. It is difficult in this war, more difficult than in the last war, but I must ask whether Ministers could not consider whether an analysis of the foreign Press could not me made and whether there could not be a weekly talk on the B.B.C. to show us, say, what was being said in the Turkish newspapers that week.
When a second front is opened as we have all hoped it would be ever since the days of Dunkirk, when another great Continental campaign against the Germans begins, the biggest single factor is going to be how much can you count upon 90 or 98 per cent. of the people in Europe wherever you land, from Norway to Greece. Are Ministers quite sure they can answer that question more cheerfully and convincingly now than six months ago, that wherever we land there will be a higher percentage of the people with us? If not, it raises at least the presumption that our propaganda in the last six months has not been beyond criticism. Is that a fair presumption? Let them collect all the political articles in the Turkish Press for the last six weeks, and let a clever fellow of the

B.B.C. make a synopsis and read it to the people. Let us know what the Swedes and the Turks think of us. Then we can begin to guess a little better what effect our broadcasts are having on them.

Mr. Driberg: Before the hon. Member sits down may I say that I am very sorry I missed the earlier part of his most eloquent speech, but I understand that he mistakenly paid me the compliment of attributing to me a phrase of which the author was President Roosevelt.

Mr. Pickthorne: I only meant to attribute not invention, but first use in this connection.

Professor Gruffydd: I must claim the customary indulgence of this House for a very inexperienced Member of it, and for a particularly diffident and sometimes ineffective speaker. I do so more particularly because I would like to express a good deal of disagreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and in the two speeches that have followed him. I am quite certain that his views on totalitarianism are no different from, his feelings towards it and his hatred of it are no whit greater, than are my own, and I fully appreciate and share with him his concern about freedom and justice in the State and in all the means of expression which the State uses to give them to its own public. I am certain he was moved to censure the activities of the B.B.C. by a deep devotion to the principles of liberty which are basic and indispensable to our common heritage.
But I must ask now for a very special degree of toleration since as a new Member I am going to do something which has apparently not been heard of in the recent annals of the House of Commons. Would it be regarded as an intolerable innovation, as something entirely indecent and bordering on the unmentionable, if I were to say a kind word for the B.B.C. and to ask that they should be treated as ordinary, honest, fallible mortals trying to do their best in one of the most difficult jobs in the Kingdom? Every class in this country has a rigid code of the right things to do and the proper things to say. The hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt regard it as part of the behaviour of a sahib to be critical of the B.B.C. on all occasions, and hon. Gentlemen here


to my right sometimes think that they are betraying their principles and betraying their class if in one unguarded moment they deviate into praise of this unfortunate Corporation. In fact, the B.B.C. has become the British cockshy, Ye Olde Englishe Aunt Sally. It provides the ordinary Briton with a magnificent opportunity to warm his nationally chilled bones at the fire of universal approbation when he condemns the B.B.C., and it is inevitably the most fruitful thesis for the pen of the genus irritabile, the scratchy clan of letter writers to the Press. It may not come amiss if an entirely irresponsible and inglorious Member of this House should for once strike a different note and express an appreciation of the war-time effort of the B.B.C. in steering so skilfully between the Scylla of the Right and the Charybdis of the Left. It is perhaps not surprising that Scylla should occasionally growl when it is baulked of its prey, or that Charybdis should howl with disappointment when its fangs close on empty air. I have always thought that the policy of the B.B.C. is a striking example of that peculiarly English compromise which is so well expressed in the preface to an unknown book, the Prayer Book:
It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England…to keep the mean between the two extremes…
No one would deny that the B.B.C. has its failings, and we in Wales are very particularly conscious of those defects. In time I hope to be able to raise in this House the question of the provision made in Wales by the B.B.C. All of us, I think, whatever our views are on the other parts of the programme, are agreed that the light variety entertainment provided by the B.B.C. does consistently and regularly underrate the mentality of the average Briton. I can even go so far as to suggest that some of the dramatic programmes might be better adapted to broadcasting. But I maintain that all men and women of good will will agree with me that in two most important respects the British Corporation gives the nation a service such as no other broadcasting Corporation gives in the whole world: namely, in serious music and in instructive and illuminating talks. I am not concerned here with the music: that does not come within the scope of the Amendment, but the talks and the report- 
age do, and they have both been indicted by the terms of the Amendment, because the talks are our propaganda, not only for ourselves but also for other people.
The hon. Member is, I gather, displeased with the choice of speakers, and bitterly resentful. He is by no means the only one of this opinion. But I deprecate most strongly the light and ill-considered use of the word "totalitarian," which is becoming the vogue both inside and outside the House of Commons. Such a word should not be lightly employed. It denotes something so fundamentally evil and so perilous to our common humanity that it would be tragic if the word lost its terror by having its outlines blurred through ill-considered use. It is what I might call a "wolf" word, and we must not cry "wolf" except when the beast is on the prowl. Otherwise, when we are arguing about small matters of taste and opinion and political differences, thinking that we are thereby combating totalitarianism, the monster itself may steal upon us unawares. It is no service to democracy or to the sacred cause of freedom to confuse our friends with our enemies, and to cheapen our condemnation of totalitarianism by applying the term to the deeds and thoughts of men and women of good will whom we do not happen to like.
The B.B.C. perhaps, like all other institutions, must necessarily tend to be a little over meticulous in its choice of speakers, in its talks, and in its reporting of speeches in this House and outside it. While it has a duty to educate public opinion, it cannot, on the other hand, be blamed for giving the greater prominence to names and personalities which have a public appeal, and for being rather shy of over-colourful personalities and of the more spectacular and dramatic expressions of opinion, whether of the right or of the left. It is possible, of course, to say that in its policy the B.B.C. is over-timid and over-conventional, but I maintain that no fair-minded judge can assert that it has shown any party bias in making its choice. The proof of that lies in what we have heard to-day in the House, and in what I have already mentioned, that the complaint on this point comes from all sides and from all parties. To put it plainly, the Right cannot accuse the B.B.C. of being Bolshevist and the Left accuse them of being Fascist, and both be right. The simple truth must be obvious to all, that they are both wrong.
It might be urged that the B.B.C. has a duty to encourage rising talent, whether political or literary or musical, even at the expense of established reputations. This is a very specious argument. To me, at least, it is unconvincing, since rising talent must win its spurs, not in the reportage or in the talks of the B.B.C., but in its own specific line of action. If one is reduced to seeking a political reputation on the air, it will indeed be a "bubble reputation." I believe that much of the misunderstanding of which complaint has been made could be removed if the Corporation could be induced to try in the sphere of public relations what has been so eminently successful in the field of school broadcasting: namely, a consultative committee of representative men and women of all parties and of all political opinions, to guide and advise them, and among such representative persons the hon. Member for Shettleston would, I have no doubt, hold a distinguished and well-deserved position.

Mr. Dobbie: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Professor Gruffydd) upon his maiden speech. I am sure that congratulation comes not only from me but from all those Members who had the privilege of hearing him. I know that we shall hear a great deal more of him and about him as time goes on.
The Amendment gives an opportunity, which I know has been welcomed, of expressing our opinions on matters of great importance to the nation, because of the part which wireless is playing, and will play, in shaping the destiny of the people not only of this country, but of many other countries. Even those who will not be able to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) must pay him the compliment of saying that he has rendered a service to the House by giving us the opportunity for this Debate. While I shall have a few mild criticisms to make of the B.B.C., I assure the hon. Member for the Welsh University that I am not looking upon them as an Aunt Sally to be knocked down, but this Amendment presents an opportunity of examining the work of the B.B.C., on both the home and the foreign services, and the method adopted in the choice of speakers, and also an opportunity of reviewing the situation in regard to partiality in connection with propaganda.

We all feel very proud of the freedom which exists in this country and which gives the hon. Member the undoubted right to make such a speech as he has made to-day. I am confident that the growing power of democracy in this country will remain so vigilant as to prevent even this powerful propaganda machine from being used as an instrument to further the institution of an authoritarian state, such as the hon. Member for Shettleston fears. I am confident that the totalitarian aspirations of anybody in this country, if they show themselves to any extent, will be defeated by the same powerful force.
There are often many excellent speakers on the wireless, and there are many who are not so excellent. But one can understand that there is sometimes difficulty in selecting speakers so that the various subjects can be dealt with and no suspicion created, but a feeling of confidence given to people that all shades of thought are being catered for. Sometimes one wonders how speakers are chosen, and how they get there. Reference has been made to Members of the House broadcasting. On 21st October the Minister of Information, in reply to a Question, made a statement that since the beginning of the war 166 Members of the House of Commons had spoken on the wireless. I understand that one Member had made 162 appearances, another 75, and 36 Members had each made more than 10 appearances. I believe that the overwhelming proportion of that 36 was made up of Ministers and Under-Secretaries. That gives an impression to the country, and even to Members of the House of Commons, that only certain kinds of people in the House of Commons are invited to go to the microphone. It would be well if the Minister, in replying, could give some definite indication as to whether there is any kind of political colour which ensures preference to be given in coming to the microphone, and whether the opportunity to speak over the wireless is arrived at by application, by invitation of the B.B.C. authority or whether the Minister himself issues the invitation? It would be a good thing if he would give us some insight into that particular question.
There is also sometimes a claim that there is only the Government viewpoint and that only those who are prepared to


put that viewpoint speak on the wireless, and some of us have a feeling that that is largely the case. The party for which I have the honour to speak last year issued what, in our opinion, was a very important statement on post-war reconstruction. The B.B.C. was as dumb as the dumb man of Manchester on that particular subject. We believed that that statement was of some importance to the men and women of the working classes of this country and to the country generally, and we wondered, and we wonder now, why the B.B.C. was so dumb on that question. Again, I would ask the Minister to make some reference to that matter. I would call that ignoring events of national significance. We have just had the Catering Wages Bill passing through this House, and there has not been a great deal of attention given to it on the B.B.C., although when brought into operation it will affect considerably the lives of many thousands of men and women in that particular industry. But inasmuch as the procedure on that Bill is not complete yet, there is still time between now and the last stages for the B.B.C. to make amends.
There is another question that has lately been considered in the House, and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) made some comment upon it. On 23rd March there was a Debate on war pensions, and many very excellent contributions were made by Members of all parties. The only speeches referred to on the wireless were those of the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and the hon. Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley)—two excellent speeches indeed—and the statement of the Minister, which was not nearly as good as the speeches. I have no desire to detract in any degree at all from the speeches made by those two hon. Members. The appeal and logic of their speeches were such that, if the logic of the Government had been as good as that of those who were championing the cause of the war pensioners, the answer of the Minister would have been very different indeed. But one would like to know why on the B.B.C. that night no indication was given of any other speakers in the House, thus giving to people in the country who only had the B.B.C. information the impression that there were only two hon. Members in the House of

Commons interested in the fate of those who had been wounded in the service of the country. I hope that in the future more attention will be paid to matters of that description. The B.B.C. was a little better last night, but, of course, it knew that the Debate was taking place to-day. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University——

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not learned.

Mr. Dobbie: I was judging the hon. Member by his speech.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is a cruel thing to say.

Mr. Dobbie: The hon. Member for Cambridge University, in making some reference to the foreign propaganda of the B.B.C., asked the Minister whether he was sure that the matter used in the foreign propaganda was such as would ensure the maximum support when the day for the launching of a second front took place. I would like also to ask the Minister whether he is sure that the foreign propaganda is of such a character as to arrest the attention of people in the foreign countries under the rule of the Nazis and from whom we expect a rising when the second front is launched. This must be a very important part that the B.B.C. will play in the conduct of the war. The significance of our propaganda on the air was realised best of all when France fell. General de Gaulle was brought to the microphone, and he made his appeal to the French people as a son of France and one prepared to fight for his country. My information is that he inspired the first sign of resistance in France in a manner of which no other would have been capable at that time or even probably at the present moment. I believe that General de Gaulle inspired the people of France with the desire to rise again and to struggle for that freedom and democracy of which we are so proud. But I am not so sure that the general policy of the B.B.C. since then has appealed to the peoples of Europe.
One is a little chary of saying too much on this particular matter, because no one at this moment desires to throw a spanner into the machinery or to make things difficult for the Government or those who are assisting them in the prosecution of the war, but I sometimes wonder whether they are conducting the foreign propaganda on the right lines and whether they


are making their appeal to the right people. I refer particularly to Greece, Yugoslavia and Spain. Are they making the appeal to the old ruling class alone and not endeavouring to know or to visualise who are the people who are conducting the resistance? The men who are conducting the resistance in countries that are occupied by the Nazis are displaying a degree of courage which we are incapable of describing here or in any other place. My information is that the spearhead of resistance in Greece is not coming from the Royalists but from the Republicans. I am not asking that the whole of the propaganda should be directed to them, but only whether the Minister is certain that he is conducting his propaganda in a way that will cause these people to know and to understand how we appreciate the efforts that they are making.
I do not say that the propaganda in regard to Yugoslavia is not conducted in the right way, but is the Minister confident that it is being conducted in the way that will give the largest amount of confidence to the people in the objective of our Government and of our country? Is it General Makailovitch's Army who are conducting the resistance, or is it the partisans of Yugoslavia? Is our propaganda to Yugoslavia directed to assist people who may possibly be in closer association with the Quislings of Yugoslavia than they are in association with the spirit of revolt or resistance against the Nazis? I would ask the Minister, without making definite statements, to say whether he is convinced that we have the right people at the microphone telling the story of the people of this country to the people who are offering the resistance and who are playing the part that we are asking them to play, and is he making the approach to the right people at the other end?
Again, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, because my information is very limited and I would not put it against the information and knowledge which he himself must have, whether he is satisfied with those who are doing the propaganda for Spain, whether the propaganda matter which they are putting across is the correct matter and whether he thinks that it is wise to placate General Franco too much with appeasement, seeing that the appeasement with regard to Hitler ended as it did? Is he of the opinion that the appeasement policy that is directed to General Franco may be disheartening those men and

women in Spain who for some time have been looking forward to the victory of this country? I ask him to look closely into the question of Spanish propaganda. I would ask him to look at the material which is being broadcast and make certain that the messages being sent to Spain will inspire the people of that country. I have little doubt in my own mind what will happen when Hitler gives the word to march into Spain. We will probably find that the people we have tried to appease are against us while those we have neglected will want to help us.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is a considerable time since we have had a Debate on the B.B.C. and I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) for moving his Amendment, although some of us will not be able to go any further in our thanks to him. I listened very carefully to everything that was said by the Mover and Seconder and I cannot place their arguments, at any stage, into direct relation with the facts as I see them. What was their central theme? It was that we should give the freest expression over the radio to the very diverse opinions held by people resident in this country and, I imagine, not only our own people. How is it possible, while recognising that the B.B.C. is to-day first and chiefly a weapon of war to be handled with the greatest possible care and delicacy, to put over the ether to foreign countries views which may be completely divergent? We have to take account of the thoughts which are in the minds of the people in occupied countries; we cannot afford to confuse them by sending out news and views which do no represent what I might call the British way of life—a typical central war-time theme and opinion. I think both hon. Members have missed the whole point of the B.B.C.'s functions in wartime.
I listened with care to the able and interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and I thought it a great pity that with his great experience and position in this House he did not find something to say in praise of the B.B.C. He attacked the presentation of the Beveridge Report by the B.B.C. but I felt throughout that it was not the B.B.C. he was attacking so much as the


Beveridge Report. Although he was at pains to say that he was not concerned with the merits of the Beveridge Report, it seemed to me to be quite clear that he disliked the Report and was therefore concerned to express disapproval of any machinery which gave expression to it.

Mr. Pickthorn: My hon. Friend has given the impression made on his mind about my efficiency or inefficiency in stating my case but when he says that in my speech I attacked the Beveridge Report I would like to ask him to refer to, or quote, any phrase which in any way indicated any criticism of or attack on that Report.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am merely giving the House my own personal opinion and the impression made on my mind by what my hon. Friend said. It appeared to me that he was using the B.B.C. as a means of attacking the Beveridge Report and its presentation. I would ask him this question: Would be not admit that the actual fact of the publication of the Beveridge Report is an item of news of first-class importance and ought to be put out to the world just as any other item of news is put out?

Mr. Pickthorn: Since my hon. Friend has asked me a definite question I will permit myself to interrupt him a second time. The answer is "Yes." It should be put out precisely like any other item of news—for example, the Uthwatt Report.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I would like to carry on my argument with my hon. Friend but I want to be fair with the House. I have a certain amount to say and I know that there are others who wish to speak and I must hasten on. I am very hopeful that we shall have a speech later in the Debate from someone who will give the view of authority with regard to what the B.B.C. are doing in this war. It seems to me that we in this House do not realise as fully as we should the tremendous efforts which the B.B.C. are making——

Mr. Maxton: Quantitatively.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Quantitatively and qualitatively. The House is very ill-informed about the B.B.C. and we ought to explore means of overcoming that. Some facts and figures were given by the Minister in the Debate last July,

and I hope he will amplify them to-day, but in themselves they do make most remarkable reading. The B.B.C. output of words has now risen to over 3,000,000 a week. At the beginning of the war they spoke in one, possibly two, languages to the world; now they speak in 45. They put out 275 hours of foreign broadcasts and news bulletins number 100 every day They are estimated to have an audience abroad of about 200,000,000. That represents an enormous expansion towards meeting present conditions and the threat which Germany imposed on us, from the radio point of view, at the beginning of the war.
Germany had a five-years' start on us. To-day, they employ 100,000 persons in their radio and ancillary services, so I understand, compared with the 11,000 of the B.B.C. Their expenditure on those services amounts to £110,000,000 a year against our Vote of £11,000,000. What the B.B.C. have done since the beginning of the war does represent a most prodigious effort and I am very hopeful that someone who has more knowledge than I can possibly have, as an ordinary listener and reader of their journal and the newspapers, will tell us about that effort.
There are one or two questions I would like to address to the Minister. The first concerns the position of the staff of the B.B.C. Are the Government justified in taking away Members of the staff of the B.B.C. and sending them to other war occupations, having regard to the fact that the B.B.C. is of such vital importance to the general strategy of the war? There are in particular one or two well-known members of the staff who have been de-reserved and sent to other war occupations. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is quite satisfied that this is the best policy. Another question I would like to ask concerns broadcasts to Russia. We all know the serious position with regard to the representation of our views in Russia compared with the representation of then-views in this country. We are very glad to know that the British newspaper in Moscow is proving a success. Do we, in fact, broadcast to Russia and if so, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any facts and figures with regard to that? If not, is it possible to institute a system of broadcasting to Russia? I feel that the more that can be done to make


our way of life known to the Russian people the better. We already have a very full knowledge in this country of what is happening in Russia.
I pass on to another point that I touched on previously—the relations between the B.B.C. and this House. It is apparent that we do not know enough about the B.B.C., and I think that accounts for the carping criticisms we hear of the B.B.C. from various quarters in this House. Would it not be possible to arrange for Members of the Board of Governors or one of other of the Directors-General to come and address Members of the House in an all-party panel meeting? We are addressed in that committee by a number of people representing different interests at various times. It seems to me important that we should hear the great figures of the B.B.C. I cannot see why, if members of religious organisations and chairmen of great commercial companies come and give their views to Members of this House with regard to the Beveridge Report, and other matters, we should be denied the privilege of welcoming the heads of this great service which, after all, is itself a child of the House of Commons. I think that might be carried a stage further. An invitation to hon. Members to visit the B.B.C. headquarters would be very welcome to some of us. We ought to see something of the work that is going on there. Criticism thrives where knowledge is absent.
I come to another point on which I feel deeply. I am a very strong supporter of the idea that we should broadcast the proceedings of this Chamber. I do not think it can be done immediately or that it should be done immediately, but I think we should work steadily towards a situation in which the proceedings in this Chamber are put out daily to the nation over the radio. I can see very little technical difficulty about that in peace-time. From the point of view of the House it would be a comparatively simple thing to arrange the microphones, and from the point of view of transmission it is comparatively easy in peacetime to harness a station. The Debate could be recorded and retransmitted at appropriate times in the evening. I am quite convinced that the argument that it would mean that Members, instead of taking part in the Debate, would be speaking as it were direct to the country, is unfounded, since it is clear that after a

short period any tendency of that kind would disappear and Members would revert to the normal cut and thrust of debate, so powerful is the debating atmosphere of this Chamber. I feel that in doing this we would be doing something to recapture the spirit which spread the ideals of democracy in Athens at the time of Pericles, that we should be doing something to get over the present lamentable position in which this House is placed in regard to public esteem. For the last 30 years the Press has been the sole medium of interpreting Parliament to the people and by and large, possibly due to our own shortcomings, possibly due to other factors, it has failed in that interpretation. Thirty years ago verbatim reports of speeches made in this Chamber were to be read in all the newspapers. For one reason and another, some good and some bad, that is no longer so. Nowadays our constituents have very much less opportunity of geting to know how their representatives are doing and what is the real meaning of parliamentary democracy.
A daily broadcast is a target for after the war, but we should aim at it now and approach it by stages. We have on the B.B.C. regularly every week "The Week in Westminster," and I would like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) with what pleasure I listened to his contribution last Saturday. I thought it was the best we have had so far. Could we not extend that most excellent institution, "The Week in Westminster," and, with the help and cooperation of the B.B.C., organise a small panel of speakers who would go up to the B.B.C. possibly twice or three times a week and give 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour's exposition of the Debate which had taken place that very day or the day before? Then, as a second stage, I would suggest that we select a great Debate in which the Prime Minister is taking part and broadcast the whole of it as a single experiment, not repeating it for some time unless it proved a success and there was a demand for it.
My last point relates to the position after the war and the relations between the B.B.C. and the Government. It is not a subject that we can go into very deeply at this time but serious thought will have to be given to it in the future. I believe the B.B.C. to be not by any means the only but a most powerful


factor in favour of the perpetuation of the single party system—I say perpetuation because I am assuming for the purposes of the argument that we have it at the moment. If and when we return to the two party system one of two things must happen. Either the present position of dissociation between the B.B.C. and the Government must be carried a stage further or else we must set about creating an alternative wireless network. It is clear to me that one or other of those two things must be done. Either the B.B.C. must be further divorced from Governmental control and be associated intimately with the people of the country or we must set up an alternative and competing wireless system. That is a question of supreme importance which will have to be decided one day. May I say just this in conclusion. Broadcasting today has ceased to be a toy. It has ceased to be primarily a means of entertainment. It has come to be a great medium of enlightenment to the peoples of the world of the British way of thought. That is where I pause to say that the proposer and seconder of the Motion have got the whole position completely wrong.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Noble Lord elaborate that? It is not generally taken in the House of Commons as good argument, to make a sweeping statement of that description.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am at the end of my remarks. At the beginning, when I think the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber, I developed my criticism of the two hon. Members' speeches.

Mr. Maxton: The Noble Lord must really not say that. I listened to every word he said with the greatest attention. I heard him make that statement about my two hon. Friends. When, on the first occasion, he made it, without supporting it in any tangible way I let it go. It is only on the second occasion that I ask him to back it up.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not interrupt me in the first instance, when I would have taken him up, but I am bringing, and with the hon. Gentleman's permission will bring, my remarks to a close. I was saying that the B.B.C. has come to be a great medium of enlightenment. It is even more than that, for we should think

largely on this question. Broadcasting can be made a great force for peace in the world. We must in future remove whatever barriers exist that impede the free import and export of man's ideas carried through the ether. In that way we shall help to overcome the war-breeding forces of suspicion, prejudice and distrust and create that understanding of and sympathy with the situation and viewpoint of all peoples which constitute the only basis of lasting peace.

Mr. John Dugdale: I am tempted to follow the Noble Lord into the realms of the one party system but I feel that I might be out of Order if I did so. In general, I agree entirely with those who have a great admiration for the work of the B.B.C. and any derogatory criticisms that I make are subject to that very important qualification.
We have two big enemy countries, Germany and Japan. I am not counting Italy for the moment. I have not yet heard anything from any quarter as to what we do with regard to our propaganda to the Japanese. I think it is a very important point. Have we experts in Japanese propaganda in the B.B.C.? Have we people who know about the country, and what co-operation do we have with the U.S.S.R., America and China on this subject? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say a word or two about that. I turn to our propaganda to Germany. I was somewhat disturbed in reading the right hon. Gentleman's reply last July to a Question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick). The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked:
Why Mr. J. B. Priestley has been allowed to broadcast views tending to show that the Nazi party and the rest of the German people are different and should be considered and treated separately.
The reply was:
I am assured by the B.B.C. that they certainly would not turn any broadcast down just because it contained views contrary to those expressed on this occasion by Mr. Priestley."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1942; cols. 522–523, Vol. 382.]
I am all for freedom of speech, and I do not say that I hold Mr. Priestley's views on every occasion. I do not. But when you are conducting propaganda to an enemy country, you must have consistency. You do not want to have views


expressed on the one hand and on the other by different kinds of people. That is very important. Certain statements have recently been made in another place about our attitude to Germany after the war, and I understand that that is the attitude of the Government. But there are other people who have other attitudes, which can be summed up in the term that we have come to know as "Vansittartism." I want to know what the B.B.C. are telling the German people about "Vansittartism." Is that the policy of the Government, because it is important that they should be told so if that is the case? Are they to be told, for example, that, to use the rather trite and melodramatic phrase of that noble Lord, "Germany has sold herself to the devil"—whatever that may mean—I think the Government should make it clear that that is not their view and that they do, in fact, hold the view that there are, at any rate, a small number of people in Germany who may possibly be tempted, at some time or other, by our propaganda to leave Hitler's cause.

Earl Winterton: Supposing any of us said, as I have said and say now, that Germany has sold herself to the devil, would the hon. Member refrain from broadcasting that to Germany?

Mr. Dugdale: I should say that, while obviously the Noble Lord is entitled to his views, they should not be used as the basis of propaganda to Germany. The Noble Lord has said that in his opinion Germany has sold her soul to the devil, but there are people in Germany to whom this propaganda can appeal, who have not sold their souls. I should like to quote one or two statements from what I might call the opposite side to our propaganda. I do not mean the, propaganda of Dr. Goebbels, but the propaganda put out by the underground radio in Germany itself. The people who listen to that radio are the same people who listen to our broadcasts to Germany, One of these broadcasts was about sabotage and said:
Kiel. The managers of the Friedrich Krupp Germany Works are much disturbed by the extent of sabotage going on in their works. Entire sections had to stop work for many days because of wilful damage secretly done to machinery. Rush orders for U-boat parts were seriously delayed. In spite of all efforts those responsible for acts of sabotage could not be discovered.

Other broadcasts stated that in Bitterfeld an explosive factory built underground had been wrecked, and that in Hamburg a mysterious fire took hold of a freighter docking in the harbour. I could give quotation after quotation of this kind. They go to prove that there are people in Germany who are actively engaged in trying to break down the Hitler regime. They are the people to whom we have to appeal in our propaganda. I will give one more quotation to show what is going on in Germany which again proves this point. There has recently been a conference in Germany of German people demanding peace. They adopted a manifesto in which they said:
Gravely alarmed for the fate of our people, we Germans from the Western regions of Germany, fully aware of our responsibilities, united regardless of religious and political convictions, overcoming many obstacles, defying all the dangers, assembled at a secret conference…
They then set out in ten points the policy they wanted to pursue. These people, I maintain, should not be simply sneered and laughed at.

Mr. Bracken: It would be of great help, in order to avoid these people being neglected, if the hon. Gentleman could tell me where this conference took place. He-is drifting into a wonderland in some of his remarks. We will fulfil all his desires, but he must not get up and talk about an important peace conference adopting a resolution and then say that we are neglecting and jeering at these people.

Mr. Dugdale: I am glad of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption because I do not mean to say that we or the B.B.C. were jeering at them. I do say, however, that there are certain people, among whom it is to be presumed the Noble Lord who interrupted numbers himself, who do jeer at people who are genuinely and sincerely trying to fight Hitler in their own way just as we are, in our way.

Earl Winterton: I would not jeer at them at all if I knew of their existence, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman to produce the names of any important Germans, except refugees, who are attempting to go against Hitlerism. They do not exist.

Mr. Dugdale: I would produce Pastor Niemuller for a start, and the Bishop of Berlin. There are very large numbers of people and not necessarily people who


hold the same views as I do. They include people belonging to religious organisations, Catholic and Protestant. For the right hon. Gentleman to ask me to state the place where these people met will not help them to carry on their propaganda.

Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend must really not try to get away with that. He has made a statement and if he was so careful about these Germans who held this meeting, he would not have raised it. He would perhaps have notified the Foreign Secretary. If he will tell me privately, it will be a great relief to me.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not perfectly true that Stalin is the only person who is doing good German propaganda? He never abuses them. He tells Germany that there will always be an army and always be a Germany. That gives hope to the anti-Hitlerites. We say, "Wait until the war is over and then we will go Vansittart."

Mr. Dugdale: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he supposes that I am to know the exact place of this meeting. All I know is that a radio broadcast from Germany was picked up in this country, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman's organisation is efficient enough to have picked it up. That broadcast stated that this conference was held and the manifesto was sent out from the conference. That is the only information I have and the only information that anybody could have in the circumstances.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member says it was picked up from a German radio. The Germans often, for their own purposes and fifth column work, suggest that there is a large section of Germany preparing for peace. I should be careful before I took anything from a German station.

Mr. Dugdale: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with those who believe that there are no people in Germany who can possibly be appealed to?

Mr. Bracken: I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman. He showed great evasiveness about the place where this conference was held and I had better make clear where I stand in this matter. Of course, nobody says that there are no decent Germans. Nobody, on the other

hand, could make the mistake of ignoring the facts of history. It is no mere coincidence that within the lifetime of many young men we have fought two major wars against these people. I am sure there is a considerable section of the German population that does not want to go to war, and when Air-Marshal Harris has finished his performances, there will be even more. You cannot condemn a whole nation, but it is a peculiar coincidence that Germany seems to delight in war and believes she can profit by it.

Mr. Dugdale: I want to make it plain, if I have not made it plain already, that I believe that the greater number of Germans at this moment are bad Germans. I am quite clear about that and I say that we should fight these Germans. I still say, however, that there is a minority of Germans who are of a different character and that it is to that minority we should appeal. Whoever these people are, whether they are good, bad or indifferent, anybody in Germany who listens to our broadcasts is liable to the death penalty. They must, therefore, be brave people for doing so. What kind of stuff is put across to them? Some of it is excellent, but some of it is not. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many people in the German section of his Department have personal experience of Germany? I am given to understand—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to correct it—that the head feature writer has never even been to Germany. I understand he is a young Viennese.
There are some curious bits of propaganda put across to these people who are listening under sentence of death. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) had something to say about the Beveridge Report. There are people in Germany who know that before Hitler came in, Germany and other countries like Czecho-Slovakia had something every bit as good as the Beveridge Report. They are not impressed by streams of propaganda saying that the Beveridge scheme is going to bring the millenium to this country. A curious thing happened once in connection with some B.B.C. propaganda to Germany. A broadcast directed to the German Navy was opened with "Rule Britannia." Now "Rule Britannia" is, no doubt, a very beautiful piece of music but it hardly


seems right to choose it for this occasion. And I would say, as I am on the subject of music, that the German people are not going to risk the death penalty to listen to cabaret entertainments. It is quite useless to put cabaret stuff over to the German people when they are listening under penalty of death.
If I may be a little more concrete I would ask what, then, should we put across to them? First, we should put across news. That we do, and do very well indeed. Secondly, we should put across anti-Nazi propaganda. Do we always do this? I had the curious experience last year of having a speech of mine, made at a meeting of exiled Germans in this country, refused broadcast to Germany. On what grounds? Because I suggested that the Nazis, the leaders of the Nazi party and people who have played a prominent part in Nazi work, should be sent out of Germany after the war to do one or two little jobs like clearing up Stalingrad, and possibly Coventry, in order to give some opportunity to the better Germans, under our very strict guidance, to make a better Germany than the Nazis have made. That speech was not allowed to be broadcast.

Mr. Bracken: Will the hon. Member tell me who refused to broadcast it? This is rather important. And does the hon. Member really believe that every observation he has made should be transmitted to Germany?

Viscountess Astor: That is rather cheap.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, I do not—and I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's remark is a little too obvious. The meeting took place in Birmingham. It was a meeting at which there were other speakers representing exiles from Germany, people who, I think, had suffered under the Hitler regime. Before the meeting it was suggested that the speeches should be broadcast, and I was informed that the proposition would be favourably considered, and I understood it was quite likely that they would be broadcast. Then I was told that they could not be broadcast, and when I asked the reason I was told that, as far as my speech was concerned, it was in fact too strong against the Nazis or too strong against the German people.

Mr. Thurtle: I think I had some negotiations with the hon. Member over this. As a result of my talks with him, we got about three very short extracts from the speeches which were made at that meeting, and they were so jejune and commonplace, and so short, that we felt we could not fit them into any programme.

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another version. If the hon. Gentleman had been honest enough to tell me so at the start, things might have been different, but that is a very easy get-out. I am glad to know that, in fact, the policy of the B.B.C. and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is that there are some Germans who can be appealed to, and that the propaganda must be devoted exclusively against Nazis in Germany. If that is the fact, it is something about which we agree.
What else is there we must put forth in our propaganda? One very important thing is the need for the Germans to fraternise with the very large number, amounting to millions, of foreign workers now in Germany. The German Government itself is somewhat worried about this position. I will not weary the House with further quotations, but the German Government has stated that the ether is without bounds and that people in Germany must be careful of what the B.B.C. or anybody else may put across to them about the need to fraternise with foreigners in Germany. That shows, I think, that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are realising the need for this propaganda to be put across, and I hope we may hear something about that type of propaganda, because it is of the utmost importance.
Not the least thing that we must put across is hope—the hope of something better for the Germans if they do revolt. If we tell them that they have no hope at all, quite obviously they are not going to revolt. Why should they? I hope that Premier Stalin, who recognises these facts very clearly, and President Roosevelt, who also apparently recognises them very clearly, and the right hon. Gentleman will co-operate, not in three different sets of propaganda but in one weapon of propaganda, so that it can be really effective. I will only say in conclusion that I know the right hon. Gentleman's position is not easy. I know that we have not got a picture of the new world and


that it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, however good he may be as a draughtsman, to draw the picture of a new world whose outlines nobody is clear about; but I would say that we must tell the German people, not only what we are fighting against but what we are fighting for, tell them that clearly and without any mistake at all, present to them a picture of the new world, the kind of world we want. If we present this picture to our allies inside Germany, we may, I submit, shorten the war by very many months and save millions of lives.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise with considerable diffidence as one of the newcomers to this House to make my first contribution to its Debates. I trust that the House will extend to me that maternal forbearance which it traditionally shows to the first efforts of its youngest children. I wish it had been possible for me to follow the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in his exciting hunt for some totally-minded persons alleged to have been seen loitering suspiciously in the neighbourhood of Langham Place. Evidently he has been going round the district with a dark lantern and has succeeded in sending up some very startling shadows, but I trust that they will frighten the House less than they appear to have frightened him. He reminds me slightly of the old lady who is always looking under her bed for the burglar who is never there. But the case put by the hon. Member for Shettleston—in spite of what strikes me as the slightly extravagant terms in which his Amendment is couched—is one which commands respect, because it is a plea for the freedom of expression of opinion and that is one of the fundamental moralities we are at war to preserve. I should like to call it, more simply, the freedom of words. Voltaire's famous dictum, "We detest what you say but we will defend with our lives your right to say it," is no mere piece of empty rhetoric.
Indeed it represents the point of view of every Member of this House, for without free words, and the power of thought and of action which they give, we should all be but the shadows of a shade. I am sure that this House, which is so jealous of words and which is such a mighty arbiter of words spoken or written, will have followed the Mover and Seconder of this

Amendment thus far with sympathy. As the hon. Member for Shettleston reminded us—unfortunately I thought for his case—censorship, selection and restriction go hand in hand with war-time propaganda and are inseparable from the modern state of war, and once you have called these spirits from the vasty deep, and they have come to you, they do not easily go. They have enlisted for the duration. In my submission we should put up with their presence as reminders of how nearly we came in 1940 to losing this freedom of words for ever. What would have happened to this Amendment if that had been the case? So, in the few criticisms I would make of the B.B.C., I want to confine myself to its normal and not its abnormal activities, in other words, to its activities in peace rather than to its activities in war.
I wish to criticise, perhaps strongly, one aspect of the policy of the B.B.C. in the past, as I fear that the same policy may tend to prevail again after the war. Before doing so, if it is not out of Order, I wish to pay my small tribute to the B.B.C. for the work which it has done for the people of this country during the war. It has been subjected to the very stringent limitations which national security has rightly imposed upon it. It has controlled, counselled, comforted and cheered the people to a very remarkable degree, especially those people who dwell in the remoter countryside. I think that people realise this, and it is right and just that it should be said. No nation in this war has had a more magnificent public servant than we have had in the B.B.C.
In the past when there were not the same limitations upon its activities, the position was rather less satisfactory. Whether we like it or not we are living in the era of the dying newspaper. For a long time past, and that is particularly true of the countryside, the newspaper has been less and less read. It is certainly no longer studied. It is still taken, of course, but when read, it is read largely, I understand, for its features, its occasional articles, its correspondence, its cartoons and in some cases, so I am credibly informed, even for its comic strips. It is not read so much for its news, and still less for its opinions. The B.B.C. has taken its place very largely. It is here that the pre-war B.B.C. fell short, I feel, of its opportunities. Perhaps it did not


realise that people were coming to regard it as their oral newspaper. It gave its news succinctly and admirably, but it neglected to amplify this news by any expressions of opinion, or better still of different shades of opinion, the fair and temperate presentation of which is, after all, the best kind of propaganda.
I would like to give two examples. The first is the distressed areas. I cannot recall any sustained attempt on the part of the B.B.C. to rouse the national conscience in this grievous matter. Secondly, I cannot recall any sustained attempt on the part of the B.B.C. to prepare the people for the possibility, indeed the probability of war, which many of us saw to be inevitable and imminent. I am aware that I could not listen to every broadcast which was made; nobody could. I am talking only of the impression which was left on my mind. If I am at fault, and if I am corrected later on in the discussion, nobody will be more pleased than I, but it does seem to me to have been a very serious omission.
I feel that there is too much of the tone of the judicial summing-up in the B.B.C. summaries of opinion, and not enough of the speeches of the counsel for the prosecution or the counsel for the defence. The atmosphere that has been created is more that of the lecture-room than of the debating chamber. That is why I, personally, welcome the suggestion that the Debates of this House might conceivably, and in certain circumstances, be broadcast. I feel, too, that the B.B.C. has been too much inclined to indulge in what I might call smooth and shining optimism. Its attitude has always rather been
God's in His Heaven—
All's right with the world!
And, while we may assent humbly to the first proposition, we must have serious doubts about the second. Here again, I feel that the ban on controversial utterances has been too heavily imposed and that the resultant propaganda, the putting of a case before our people, with all its pros and all its cons clearly and unmistakably defined, has been feeble where it should have been strong and has been neglected where it should have been regarded as of the first importance.
I do not wish to detain the House but I desire to express the hope that when peace comes again the B.B.C. will realise that

it has a special responsibility for the forming of public opinion by the best and fairest methods, and that there should be no vested interests, whether they are of politics, of religion or of economics, capable of preventing temperate discussion over the air of any subject of general public interest. I hope that there will be mountains and valleys as well as fertile plains in the landscape of the future, as visualised by the B.B.C.
I realise that you cannot say over the air what you can say in a book or even in a newspaper. Dividing lines must be drawn, but I contend that they have been drawn too rigidly in the past. As to those listeners who may hear something with which they do not agree and are made angry by so doing, I submit that they are suffering from a form of intellectual cowardice. It should stimulate them to put forward their own point of view, to meet attack with defence and defence with attack, and if what I am saying should offend against anyone's susceptibilities or against somebody else's sense of decorum, I would put it forward that a family which quarrels is a more vital unit than a family which is a mutual admiration society. In conclusion, I would urge a wider and bolder use of such democratic methods after the war, a broader conception of the whole functions of broadcasting and, above all, a greater trust in the good sense and good will of the people of this country.

Mr. Sorensen: For the first time in my Parliamentary experience it falls to my lot very heartily to congratulate the previous speaker on the occasion of his maiden speech. I am fortified in so doing by the knowledge that all of us here have thoroughly enjoyed the eloquence and thoughtfulness he has put into his statements. I can further express very genuine personal as well as representative desire that the hon. Member who has now come among us will on future occasions also contribute to our Debates and discussions. Might I add just one qualification? It struck me as a little incongruous when he criticised the B.B.C. for believing that
God's in His Heaven,
All's right with the world.
when I saw opposite to me my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information. That qualification, I assure the previous speaker, is no reflection


on him, nor indeed on anyone else, but is one little point which we might reflect on later.
It has been frequently said rather tritely and platitudinously that inventions are not unmixed blessings. That is certainly true of wireless broadcasting. But I do not think we can criticise the instrument; it is rather human beings and the motives they have in putting that instrument to good or bad uses that we must criticise. [Interruption.] That is quite true, but so many try to condemn the machine, rather than the human beings who use it. I say that praise or blame does not lie in the invention itself, but the use to which it is put. I will try to explain what is the point of that rather ordinary remark. It is this: I had a certain sympathy with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) when he warned us of the dangers of totalitarianism issuing from the broadcasting service. I agree that that is peculiarly so with broadcasting, but it is up to us who form this British community to determine how that broadcast service shall be used. In other words, it depends on public opinion, and particularly on the opinion and atmosphere of this House, as to how this great invention shall be used, for good or ill. I can quite conceive of its being used for ill. In certain lands it has already been used in that way. Who can doubt that in Germany broadcasting has been one of the strongest cements of totalitarianism?
I know there has been some criticism of the very word "totalitarian," and the hon. Member who spoke some time ago who represents the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), I believe, rather challenged our frequent usage of that term. Yet I think we know, broadly speaking, what is associated with that term "totalitarianism." We associate it with the idea of a State so organised as to subordinate the interests of all individuals to the supremacy of the State. That is a danger and more than a danger. I believe indeed that in Germany it has caused the paralysis of the creative intelligence of people who are there; it has brought about a degradation of the human spirit, and wherever that danger exists and develops a similar paralysis and degeneration will undoubtedly take place. On the other hand, I would point out that there is just as much danger of totalitarianism arising from democracy as from auto-

cracy. Democracy can easily degenerate into dictatorship of the proletariat which to me can be almost as dangerous as the dictatorship of individuals. The multiplication of individual minds and thoughts does not make them any more wise than 99 sheep in a field are wiser than one sheep.
I hold there is almost as much danger in the consolidation of a mass mind that is intolerant of minorities as in the usage of tyrannical powers by individuals over a majority. I relate this therefore to the function of broadcasting in war-time. We are living in a state of emergency. This is an exceptional war-time period unless it goes on too long, when to many it becomes quite normal and they think of peace as a mere pause between one tragic normal period and another. As long as we remain civilised we shall assume that war-time is a tragic episode or interval in the normal life of man. I can appreciate that in war-time some restrictions must be imposed on our broadcasting service which would be intolerable in peacetime. Therefore, I am not complaining, though I hold minority opinions in more ways than one, that certain limitations are imposed. Although one hon. Member suggested that broadcasting was a most valuable instrument for war, I would also urge that we should realise all the more that the true functions of broadcasting should be a most valuable implement for peace and civilisation. Even if broadcasting has to be subordinated to the functions of war in war-time, I beg of hon. Members that they should not relegate its more civilised purpose altogether into oblivion. I go further and say that unless we keep alive in our mind all the time the realisation that we are trying to preserve civilisation, then indeed there will be a danger of fighting for fighting's sake and finding ourselves impotent at the end of the war to build a finer civilisation.
I agree there are certain difficulties about a broadcasting system in any land in any circumstances, I disagree with the previous speaker when he suggested that broadcasting might replace the Press, for whether we adopt the system of broadcasting system in America or Russia or the broadcasting system we have here, it does not alter the fact that the hours in which messages, ideas, thoughts, impressions can go out over the ether are limited. In America there are certain alternatives, but even these must be


limited. So long as we have the Press, minority opinions in normal times can express their opinions through a journal and get that journal circulated. In our own country—I think, on the whole, wisely and rightly—we have adopted the method of having a single corporation that shall be responsible exclusively for the dissemination of views and of news. That has its value. When I have heard the American broadcasting system suddenly end some delightful piece of music on a note of advertisement for somebody's boot polish, I have thought it would be a poor day for this country if ever we had that method. I had some sympathy with the suggestion made by an hon. Member opposite that we should have alternative services of broadcasting after the war. So long as that does not mean the adoption of the American system, I am inclined to agree.
But while we have the B.B.C. as the solitary agent, the difficulty is, how shall we determine what amount of time shall be given to minority opinion? Shall there be every now and again a sort of survey, to find out whether the minority opinion in question has grown to, say, one-tenth or one-twentieth of the total volume of opinion, and shall we then allocate a corresponding amount of time? One has only to mention that to show the difficulty. In peace-time the B.B.C., on the whole, did its job in an excellent way, and did try to balance up majority opinion with minority opinion, to balance orthodoxy with heterodoxy; and we should make allowances in war-time for a certain decline from that standard. But, even in war-time, recognising the difficulties and dangers, I urge the B.B.C. and the Minister of Information not to be afraid of minority opinion. They should still recognise that minority opinions, even though they are very unpopular, should be allowed expression from time to time. I say that because I believe that there would be no finer emphasis to the world of the value of democracy, and British democracy in particular. For other people to hear on occasion minority opinions, even of an unpopular character, would make them realise that we have in this country something of great value, something which gives us a characteristic, something of which we should be especially proud. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to preserve the expression of such minority opinions

on the broadcasting services as are allowed, and even on occasion to go beyond that. Let me give three illustrations to show what I mean. Reference was made a short while ago to the historic and well-known phrase of Voltaire, and there were many echoes of agreement with that. On the other hand, although we may agree in principle with Voltaire's phrase we are far from practising it at present, even in areas where it could do no harm to the course of the war.
Take the question of religion. I have a very strong religious faith, strengthened by experience and thought. It is in certain respects heterodox, but everybody here, even the most orthodox, has views which years ago would have been condemned as unorthodox, and punishable at the stake. Although I have this strong religious conviction myself, I deplore the fact that when, for instance, the broadcasting service tries to deal with that aspect of peoples' lives—an aspect which some would say should be the predominant aspect—they so often show a prejudice in favour of the careful, the cautious and the orthodox. Why should they not allow unorthodox religious opinion to express itself from time to time? If we can have a Unitarian Prime Minister in this House, as we had some time ago, if we can have Rationalists and other unorthodox schools of thought, why should it not be possible for a Rationalist or an Atheist or a Christian Scientist or any other? [An HON. MEMBER: "Plymouth Rock."] Plymouth Rock, too, as you call them. I do not mind; whatever the opinion is, it should have some right of expression, but if you are going to classify that religious expression with, say, the high intellectual attainments of the members of the Rationalist organisation, I would refer you to other Members of this House, who are more competent to deal with the subject than I am. It seems to me that no harm would be done by allowing unorthodox religious opinion to express itself sensitively, carefully, and with due respect for other religious opinions. It seems to me that there has been a failure in recent years, especially during the war, to permit the expression of such points of view, which obviously could have no possible effect on the course of the war. I, as a man with religious convictions, plead earnestly that people should have


not merely the privilege, but their right, of expressing these opinions through the B.B.C. I am not merely thinking of the negative point of view. There are positive sides to it. I know that a little while ago an attempt was made to give a pretence of free discussion on theological subjects. It was in a series called "The Anvil." It struck an anvil made of tin, which was struck with hammers made of cardboard.

Mr. Driberg: Unfortunately, "The Anvil" is starting again very shortly.

Mr. Sorensen: I did not know that; I have not much time for listening to the wireless. But whether it is or is not, it seemed to me adding insult to injury to put up dummies in such a way and then, with a pretence of being fair and objective, to knock them down. It was a disgrace to human intelligence. There is no need for this sort of discussion to be acrimonious. We in this House hold various points of view. I daresay almost every religious and non-religious opinion is held in this House. Members who congregate in the smoking rooms—I am afraid I have not time to do so—no doubt overcome the English view that we must not discuss religion, and venture into those fields. If we could have such broadcasts it would give people a view of what our life is like—an excellent life in many ways. There is one characteristic of this life which I cherish. That is its extraordinary toleration; and not toleration alone, but toleration with a certain warmth of good will in it. Even Members in this House who sometimes burst out acrimoniously, soon subside, and the worst of enemies are found smiling in good comradeship. That is one thing which is good at such a time as this. I plead, therefore, in the name of Britain, in order to make our Britain a great Britain in the deepest moral sense of the word, that the B.B.C. should allow heterodox, abnormal, religious opinions to express themselves through its services.
The same thing applies in regard to political subjects. Members of this House know that I have a certain point of view regarding India. It is not popular, perhaps not even among my friends; but it is an opinion that I have come to, not through emotion but as a result of the study of facts. I want to know why it is not possible from time to time for a

representative of what is called advanced opinion—I do not mean myself, but an Indian—to be able to express his point of view. Why could there not have been a representative of the Indian National Congress and a representative of the Moslems to express their points of view? When you think of men like Mr. Jinnah on the one hand, and Mr. Nehru on the other—I will not bring in Mr. Gandhi for the moment, because many think him an impossible mediaevalist, although I do not consider him myself in that way—why could they not be allowed to make their answer to the criticisms made in this House? Why could we not, even now, ask the Viceroy to allow Mr. Nehru, over the broadcasting system from India to this country, to give an answer to the White Paper, which is a purely ex-parte statement—a combination of gaoler, jury, prosecutor and judge? I see no disadvantage in that whatever, and I ask the Minister therefore to be bold in this respect.
I see, too, no reason at all why in other respects, including even war and the development of the war, the questions, for instance, of food relief, of the Colonies and of the discrimination between different kinds of Germans and so on, there should not be ample opportunity given for these discussions. When it is said, as it is said to-day, that virtually the great majority of Germans are behind Hitler, it may be so, but I do not forget that if it had not been for a lucky chance we might have been making adverse accusations against the people of Russia. We are not doing it now, I am glad to say. I only mention it in order to suggest that, whether the minority against Hitler be large or small, if there be this minority and if in addition there is a point of view respecting it that many people hold should be given to the world in order to prevent an indefinite war between the peoples but rather to stimulate their awakening in order that they might co-operate to end war, then I ask that they be allowed to express their feelings, and so encourage finer citizens of the world. It may be that what I have stated is unattractive to some people, because they live in a kind of hot-house. They get inside, close the door and are so comfortable mentally speaking, that they do not like the draughts that blow in from outside. They do not like any suggestion that unorthodox


and difficult issues should be allowed to enter. Let us realise that most of the ideas we hold in common were unorthodox at one time. Therefore, for the sake of a sweeter, cleaner and more invigorating atmosphere, whilst we keep our orthodoxy, let us also open the door so that the winds of minority ideas may freely blow through to the benefit of all.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: May I add my thanks and appreciation for the two maiden speeches contributed to our Debate to-day delivered by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) and the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent. (Mr. E. P. Smith)? The hon. Member for Ashford repeated two or three times the phrase, "the opinion of the B.B.C.", and complained that the B.B.C. did not express its opinion vigorously. I would like to make that point clear. For nearly 20 years now this House on numerous occasions, and the country, through committees of inquiry and by a unanimous expression of opinion throughout the Press, has declared itself in favour of a policy in which the B.B.C. does not have an opinion. It is most wise that we should retain this policy with regard to the B.B.C.'s own opinion.
I have intervened on behalf of the Board of Governors, of which I and my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) are members, to place before the House one or two facts about the reporting of the speeches made in this House, partly because it is a matter of considerable interest to Members of the House and partly because it has been referred to two or three times during this Debate. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), who opened the Debate, referred to a particular Debate on war pensions, when he said that a fair representation of the Debates that have taken place in this House was not broadcast, and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) referred to the same Debate. I want to be very brief, because I know many other hon. Members want to speak, but if I find that I have time without transgressing the time I ought to take, I will deal with that particular Debate, more especially as I happened to be involved in it.
I will take up the time of the House for a few minutes to give them some figures which I have had taken out by

way of trying to test what we have been doing. I have taken the period of the last 10 weeks of Parliamentary time during this Session, and this is what I find. First, as regards the number of Members of Parliament whose speeches have been mentioned in our broadcast in comparison with some of the newspapers. In "The Times" newspaper, in the last 10 weeks of Parliamentary time, there have been 899 Members' speeches mentioned with their names attached to the remarks that have appeared; in the "Daily Telegraph" there have been 663; the B.B.C. has mentioned 244, and the "Daily Express" 141. There is no peculiarity about the particular papers that I have chosen. There was not time to go into the analysis which would have been afforded by looking at the "Manchester Guardian," the only other paper that reports Parliament seriously and at length. The reason the "Daily Express" and not another paper was chosen was that it happened to be available. There is no other reason. "The Times," the "Telegraph" and the "Manchester Guardian" report our Debates at great length.
It might be asked, Why does not the B.B.C. report the Parliamentary Debates at the same length as "The Times," the "Telegraph" and the "Manchester Guardian," who give three times as many names in a given period? There is a very good reason. It is because the mediums are different. If the B.B.C. was to report three-and-a-half times as much of the Parliamentary Debate as it does report, it would be reporting it for probably one-third, or one-tenth, or one-hundredth of the audience. It is a fact that if you add on to the news bulletin 10 or 12 minutes of Parliament Debate you probably retain about one-quarter of the audience that ordinarily listens to the news bulletin who would continue to listen to the Parliamentary report. Perhaps some 16,000,000 people listen to the news bulletin. Then at about 10 or 11 minutes past nine about half of them switch off. It seems to be about as long as anyone can stand a news bulletin. After that they go on listening, the remaining half, until about a quarter past, and when they hear the opening of the Parliamentary report, about two-thirds of the remainder switch off. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know that?"] These are fairly well established facts, as a result of our various branches of inquiry—what it is to which our people


listen and as to how they are listening. It must be accepted as a fact that if you double or treble the length of time given, you will undoubtedly reduce your audience to a similar proportion. May I bring in, in support of that, the "Daily Express," which gives much less space? If it gave speeches at length or too many of them, it would lose its readers, and it does not want to do that. We of the B.B.C. have to choose, and the House has to choose as our masters, whether we would prefer that many millions of people listen to the high spots in Parliament or who are thought to be high spots, or whether we would rather have much longer reports listened to by many fewer people. That is the first balance we have to have in our minds.
Now may I turn to the party question, because that was specifically raised in this Debate by two Members? First, may I tell the House what I believe to be the state of the parties? The Conservatives in percentage figures, are 58 per cent. of this House. It is not to be argued that that is a good thing, but it is the fact. The Labour Party represent 28 per cent.; the Liberals 7 per cent. and the others 6 per cent. The comparison I want to bring to the notice of the House is between the percentages into which we naturally fall as parties and the way in which certain newspapers and the B.B.C. have reported the speeches made in this House. For instance, 46 per cent. of all speeches mentioned in "The Times" during the last 10 weeks have been Conservative; for the "Daily Telegraph" the figure is 48 per cent.; for the B.B.C. it is 46 per cent., and for the "Daily Express" it is 52 per cent. The reports of these newspapers and of the B.B.C. are produced at the same time by different people in different buildings. The percentage of time given to Conservatives by these four different organs of publicity is within a point or two of the same figure. Is not that very remarkable? Now may I give the Labour figures? For "The Times" it is 36 per cent.; for the "Daily Telegraph" it is 36 per cent; for the B.B.C. it is 36 per cent., and for the "Daily Express" it is 38 per cent. Is it not very remarkable that these figures should have been about the same for the last 10 weeks? Now we come to the Liberals, for which the figures are: "The Times," 9 per cent.; the "Daily Telegraph," 8 per cent.; the

B.B.C., 13 per cent and I can give no explanation for that—and the "Daily Express," 3 per cent.—and it is not for me to give an explanation for that.
The similarity of these figures is very remarkable, and I want to point to one or two morals which arise from it. Many people say that the B.B.C. is "Leftish." It is true that the Tories in this House number 58 per cent. and that the figures I have given show that during the past 10 weeks the amount of space given to the Tories is 46 per cent. Perhaps we have under-reported the Tories. Have we? Is it not that there is a larger proportion of the Tories away in distant theatres of war, fighting? Does that account for that fact? I do not know; I have not had time to go into it. But, at any rate, it cannot be said that the Tories are being over-reported. The Labour Party is being reported at about the same rate, and there are almost identical percentages by the two newspapers we have regarded as being most reliable in the reporting of us and by the "Daily Express," which is one of the more popular papers. May I give the House one other figure? The news bulletin and the reporting of Parliament which accompanies it may be looked upon as our edition of news and Parliamentary reporting for 9 o'clock in the evening. Compare it with "The Times" newspaper, which is an edition of a particular organ, and you will find that the proportion of Parliamentary reporting of the whole edition is 40 per cent. in the B.B.C. and 13 per cent. in "The Times." Why? Because "The Times" contains so many columns of other matter. It may be said that people open "The Times" to read about sport, religion, and so on. So they do. But if there is a great mass of millions of people whose only access to guidance about the House and our news is the B.B.C—and it has been so stated—then, in the period during which the greatest number of the masses listen, 40 per cent. of what they hear is reports of the proceedings of this House. I hope this goes some way towards answering the criticism that we do not sufficiently report the House.
Finally, may I deal with the particular Debate to which reference has been made? It has been stated in two or three newspapers, it has been stated in this Debate by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr.


McGovern) and by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie), and it has been stated in a newspaper by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), that in that pensions Debate there was either a mistake or some partiality, either personal or perhaps party. May I tell the House how the matter was dealt with so that hon. Members may judge for themselves what are the facts? In the 6 o'clock news bulletin more speakers, and speakers of various parties, were referred to, but in the 9 o'clock news bulletin of the pensions Debate it is true that the speech which I had the honour to make, the speech made by the noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) and the winding-up speech of the Minister of Pensions were the only three speeches reported. It may well be that reasonable men may differ if they look at any particular night and ask whether the news on that night was right or fair. I could equally produce a night on which only the Labour Party were mentioned in the news bulletin. If there happened to be a Labour Minister winding-up and a member of the Labour Party, possibly fully in support of the Government, had opened the Debate, that might well happen. In this particular instance, for better or worse, I was opening the Debate. It is customary, if one reports anybody, to report the person who opens the Debate. Therefore, I very much resent the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Eye that I was so reported because I happen to be a Governor of the B.B.C. The hon. Member said that in a newspaper last week and it was brought to my notice. I think that is an unfortunate suggestion which ought never to have been made. I was so reported, presumably, because I opened the Debate, and there may be some who think that in this particular matter it is a subject on which I have some knowledge. The Minister was reported because the Minister must be reported at the end of the Debate.
What then were we to do? There was news coming in from Tunisia. There was a Debate in another place on the Jews. All those things have to be packed into 22 or 23 minutes. As the news men are making up the news, in comes something else that must go in Can you cut out the opener of the Debate? Can you cut out the Minister? Should you cut out the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), who is chairman of the Labour

Party ex-Servicemen's Pensions Committee, or should you cut out the noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol? The noble Lady was making a maiden speech. She has a special knowledge of the subject. Should the Labour Party be cut out, or should it be put in to keep the party balance? That is the sort of problem, with 50 seconds in which to settle it, that the news men have to handle at the B.B.C. No doubt they often make mistakes, and perhaps they made a mistake on that occasion. But the House ought to remember the way in which these things happen, and the circumstances.
Finally, let me say this. In the House we appoint to your noble Chair, Mr. Speaker, and to the Chairmanship of Ways and Means, and to the Judges' seats, Members like ourselves who in their time have taken part in controversy. Some of us go straight from controversy on the floor of the House to take the Chair in Committee. I think we can trust each other to put off our party feelings and affiliations. I think it ought to be expected of the B.B.C. that, though it makes mistakes, it tries to carry out its trust between the political parties honourably.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I feel sure the whole House is grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for intervening and bringing his great practical knowledge to bear on the problem. Excellent as the Debate has been hitherto, I felt that until he spoke it lacked something, and that was a detailed statistical analysis of what has been put out by the B.B.C. in recent months. He has provided us with that, and we appreciate it very much. With regard to the particular occasion of which he spoke, I felt that his own speech, at whatever point he came into the Debate, ought certainly to have been reported at length. It was one of the best speeches I have listened to. As for my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), we on these Benches felt bound to make our protest and, though I have had no opportunity of consulting with my hon. Friends who made it, I feel sure that we should like to accept the hon. Member's explanation, but I should like to add one consideration which has not yet come in. The hon. Member was proposed to put the party's point of view on that occasion, but he was speaking, not from the Front Bench


but from this bench, from which most speeches are supposed to be unimportant, and it may have escaped the attention of the reporters that he was making rather more than the speech that one expects from a back bencher.

Mr. Driberg: There is one point which does not seem to have occurred to members of the Labour Party. The Tories such as the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and the Noble Lady and others were strongly critical and impatient of the Government's attitude, and in a sense they were putting the case which the Labour Party also put.

Mr. Thomas: I see that point, but I think Members of Parliament should not be childish in this matter of reporting by the B.B.C. If we rushed to the wireless or to the newspapers next morning to see what notice we had received, I think this House would soon be heading for a very bad state of affairs. Speaking for myself, on the one occasion on which I have been reported by the B.B.C. at any length I regretted it, because I received so many letters in protest, and I decided that it is probably better not to be reported. In the sentence or two which the B.B.C. can give there is so much necessary condensation that all the qualifications that one introduces in a speech of 10 or 15 minutes cannot be reproduced. I would ask hon. Members not to pay so much attention to that question as has been given in the past.
Subsequent speakers have put the B.B.C. into a better perspective than the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He confined himself to the home service of the B.B.C., but that is not the most important aspect of the B.B.C. to-day. Its most important service is the European service. That is a matter of great operational value, and it is governed by considerations quite different from those which operate in the home service. I have spoken critically in the House and outside about those services in the past, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that there has in my judgment been a great improvement in the past 12 months. Indeed, I think it is now working extremely well and is an operational instrument of great value. I Would like to give due credit for that to the Minister of Information, who has shown, merely by holding his

office for so long, in comparison with the disasters which befell his predecessors, that he brings no small qualities to his task.
I cannot go into the subject in great detail, and we are handicapped by our ignorance of the languages and our lack of access to the scripts. We are very liable to be at the mercy of somebody with an axe to grind in this matter. A large number of hon. Members, I fear, are apt to take the point of view of the last refugee they have met. That is very dangerous. Let us take, for example, the broadcasts to Hungary by Mr. Macartney, which are often mentioned and which come in for a great deal of criticism. I do not pretend to know whether they are good or bad because I do not know a word of the Magyar language. I do not suppose that the people who make the criticisms know it either. We are at the mercy of people who may have a special point of view to plead in this respect. I only suggest that Members must be cautious and not take these statements at their face value. The services I listen to mainly are those in French, German and Italian, because I know the languages, and I am bound to pay a high tribute to them. The French service has been for a long time brilliant. It had a bad period at the time of the Darlan affair, as was natural, but it has got into its stride once more, and it is a first-class service. The Italian service after many vicissitudes is now working very well. There are special difficulties in the case of Germany, and they came out in the course of the speech by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale).
Many of the defects in the service of the B.B.C. are due not to the B.B.C. at all but to the fact that they must work within the limits of the policy provided for them by the Government. If there is no policy provided, they naturally cannot do the work. We must remember also that the home service and the foreign service are governed by entirely different considerations. The European service must express the Government's policy. In the home service we expect to have a clash of opinion, but we cannot speak to enemy and enemy-occupied countries with different voices at the some time. The European service is an operational instrument designed to help in the winning of the war and not to express a clash of opinions. Therefore, if there is any criticism, it ought


to be directed at the Government as a whole for failing to provide a policy and not at the B.B.C.
I say that so that the whole question can be put in its proper perspective. But may I now deal with the specific charges made by the hon. Member for Shettleston? He says that the B.B.C. is totalitarian in its treatment of political, social, religious and medical questions. In the matter of medical questions, I should feel prepared to concede something to him. He made out a plausible case when he said that there were venal doctors who were always to be found who would prescribe the right food at the right time and so on.
There may be something in that, but it is not a new feature. I think it is rather a part of the love of fashion which has prevailed among doctors as among women. Doctors were doing that kind of thing before the war began and before the right hon. Gentleman occupied his present post. As to religious questions, I am quite certain the hon. Member is wrong. Although I have not come to the House armed with statistics like the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), I have taken the trouble to go through the programmes in the "Listener" for the whole of the present year. They show that the B.B.C. has been running a series of talks on various religions, and I have noticed talks given about the Anglican way of worship, the Roman Catholic, the Presbyterian, the Methodist and the Quaker, and there may have been others. That there was a Quaker speaker does, I think, disprove the hon. Member's contention that persons who are pacifist do not find their way to the air. I admit that the speaker was not preaching pacificism on that occason, but he was a pacifist.

Mr. Stephen: Was he a pacifist?

Mr. Thomas: I assume that all members of the Society of Friends are pacifists. I may be wrong in that assumption, but it is basic to their belief. As for political and social questions, I feel bound to say that the news, which is the most important feature of the whole service, in my judgment has given a very fair picture indeed of the clash of opinions in this country. Let us take one feature, the Brains Trust, which I suppose is the feature most popular after the news. I should not have thought that Professor Joad or Mr. Julian

Huxley could be regarded exactly as upholders of existing institutions or——

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Right-wing feudalists.

Mr. Thomas: Or right-wing feudalists. It is perfectly true that Professor Joad——

Mr. Pickthorn: He is not a professor.

Mr. Thomas: Well, Dr. Joad—is coming round to different views on some questions. He seems to have converted himself, and I regard it as a most significant sign of the times. At any rate the B.B.C. has given to these men and to such men as Professor Laski a very wide latitude in its services, and I do not think the contention of the hon. Member for Shettleston is borne out. But I must not speak at greater length, because I do not want to occupy any unnecessary moment before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this Debate, for I am looking forward with relish to the manner in which, I am sure, he will answer the hon. Member for Shettleston. I think I have seen him straining at the leash. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member is right in accusing me of inciting him to disaffection. All I want in conclusion is to say that the most important aspect of this matter really is the European service of the B.B.C. It is bringing hope and comfort to millions of people. In a personal way I can understand what that means, because I happened to be caught out in Spain when the civil war broke out and spent several weeks there before being brought back in the ill-fated "Repulse," and after the frenzied views of the Spanish wireless on both sides it was a great relief in the evenings to hear the calm, reassuring accents of the B.B.C. announcer from London. I feel certain there are many thousands of people, indeed millions, in Europe to-day who listen to the B.B.C. and get the same comfort from it. We know that they listen, because the German and Italian newspapers regularly report cases of people who are sent to prison for listening to the B.B.C. The B.B.C. is, therefore, an instrument of the greatest operational value, and I feel that the charges brought by the hon. Member for Shettleston are not justified.

Mr. Maxton: I hope I shall not detain the House for very long. I understand that the Minister wants a very considerable time.

Mr. Bracken: I would always give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friends and I will be very glad to hear the Minister. It will be a great day for this House and for the country, and I almost said for the world, when the Minister of Information makes a speech lasting for three quarters of an hour. I hope he will answer the case which was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I have not heard an answer yet to the Amendment which we have moved. It is true that the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) wiped us aside very authoritatively, but he did not bring one single argument to show that the case made by my hon. Friends was unsound.
I was interested in the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser)—who unfortunately has had to leave—making his defence of the B.B.C. He spoke of the amount of time that is divided among Conservatives, Liberals and Labour, and showed that the time totalled up to nearly 100 per cent. He said that that proved how detached and fair the B.B.C. were to all sections of the community. The hon. and gallant Member forgets—and this is one of the unfortunate things about the activity of my hon. Friends and myself in this House—that we come forward inspired by a desire for the public interest and to point out certain tendencies that we think are wrong in the management of affairs. Here, we find to our amazement that what we are doing is to disclose that, instead of a united Government in this country there are three or four national groups who think that, although they keep the Government in office, give them their authority and give the Prime Minister the power to speak for the nation as a single voice, that is the whole difference. It is no answer for the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale to tell me that the three different sections that make up the supporters of His Majesty's Government and go to provide the personnel of the Government, consume almost 100 per cent. of the time available on the air for propaganda, or to say that that shows how fair the B.B.C. behaves in the allocation of time.
We have been suspected of prejudice in social and political matters. Maybe we are regarded as being biased and pre-

judiced in that respect, but we do not limit our criticisms to social and political matters. In our Amendment we deal also with religious and medical matters, in which nobody can accuse us of being biased and prejudiced. In regard to religion and medicine, the three Members of this party hold entirely different views. The hon. Member for Shettleston is a member of the oldest organisation of the Christian Church; the hon. Member for Camlachie is a member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and my own views, although quite sincerely held, are not expressed by any of the recognised religious organisations. I listen a great deal to the wireless; I think I am a decent listener. I do not think it deserves the paeans of praise that have been voiced in this House for its services during the war. I do not think it presents to the world Britain at its best. I do not think, in spite of the hon. and gallant Member for the Lonsdale Division, that the British Broadcasting Corporation is as fair as the London "Times" or the "Manchester Guardian" or the "Glasgow Herald." It is a public Corporation that is supposed to belong to the whole of us. I would rather trust my political reputation, for what it is worth, in the hands of the London "Times" than the B.B.C., and "The Times" is an avowedly Conservative journal.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Maxton: It is extraordinary how all my ideals are shattered. Here is another rift disclosed in the lute. Avowedly it is an anti-Socialist journal.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Maxton: It is a piece of private property run for private profit. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, it is run by a trust."] If hon. Members tell me that I have to stop spending 3d. on it because it is not a reputable enterprise I will have to take their word for it. But I buy the "Telegraph" too. Now, is that all right?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: If the hon. Member wants a definition of "The Times," it is a 3d. edition of the "Daily Herald."

Mr. Maxton: Well, I think it plays fair with me. Maybe that is what is wrong with it from the hon. Member's point of view. I will give a small example; I have


no grievance now about it at all. I think it is an example of not playing straight. It goes back to an earlier time than when the Minister was responsible. The B.B.C. worked on me what I think is the slickest bit of three-card trick I have experienced. In the General Election of 1931 the various leaders of parties were being allotted time on the air to state to the electors their views and what their parties stood for. I wrote in and asked whether I could be allotted time like the others. I was told I should have to wait until nomination day and see how many candidates we were putting up for the poll. I waited until nomination day and intimated to them that our nominations numbered 23 or something like that. They wrote back—this was in Lord Reith's days—that they were sorry, but the minimum number that could secure a spokesman on the B.B.C. was 25. I once travelled in a railway compartment with some three-card tricksters coming from a race meeting, and they were clean sportsmen compared with the B.B.C. Here is something which I think was indefensible. I would not have worried for one minute if the B.B.C. had ignored my presence altogether, but I object to this sort of thing.
In the course of a speech I said that if I were going tiger-hunting I would as soon go tiger-hunting with the Prime Minister as with anyone, but that my difference with the Prime Minister is a deeper and more fundamental one than that—I do not want to go tiger-hunting, while he sees nothing else but tigers. The B.B.C. reported in its six o'clock news that Mr. Maxton, speaking in the House of Commons, said that he would rather go tiger-hunting with Mr. Churchill than with anybody else in the world. Is not that disgraceful? It is shocking. I have another case. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie have told me time and time again to get out of the habit of saying decent things about political opponents. They say it is a dangerous habit, because if you say a decent thing about an opponent, that is the one thing that the B.B.C. report, and they ignore your general contribution. That is not playing the game, and it is tendentious propaganda.
Our criticism of the B.B.C. during this war period is that if you are going to speak about music, if you are going to

speak about medicine, if you are going on to the Brains Trust, which is supposed to be a free forum, if you are going to deal with any technical aspect that does not affect the high policy of the Government at present, unless you are prepared to bow the knee to Baal in advance, you may be a great musician, who is competent to talk about music, you may be a great medical man, capable of speaking about medical subjects with greater authority than anybody else in the land, or you may be a great preacher, capable of dealing with religious problems and of appealing to the mass of the people, but you cannot give the nation the benefit of your specialised knowledge. That is totalitarianism. I have had experience of this; I cannot refer to it, but it is none the less real. I have heard it from others. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) stated in this House one day that he had been asked to speak on the B.B.C., and that he proposed to deliver a speech which was his own paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount. They would not have it.

Mr. I. Thomas: He should have given them the original.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member for Mossley is too honest a man to go on the air and pretend that he is the author of the original Sermon on the Mount. I am certain that if I went around to various Members of this House who have been taking part in air talks, I would find a majority of them, even those in good standing and whose political and governmental loyalty is not suspect, who have found some junior officer at the B.B.C. who has blue-pencilled their manuscript and who has said, "You cannot say that sort of thing here."
When you start vetting and running the intellectual life of the nation, you are getting on to a very dangerous road. This broadcasting business is a wonderful and a tremendous thing. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), in a very delightful maiden speech, said that he believed that it would kill the newspapers. I was told before the war—and I do not know what the situation is now—that the piano, gramophone, and musical instrument people had the same fear, that the arrival of the wireless into the home would destroy the demand for musical instruments, but that, on the


contrary, they found the precise opposite to be the fact and that the bringing of music into the home had stimulated the desire of many people to try their hand at something musical themselves and to develop an interest in music that they had never had before. I think that probably the same will prove to be true in the ultimate about reading generally and about newspapers in particular.
We feel that you are not making the use of this tremendous instrument that could be made, nor is the nation striving sufficiently hard to get into the way of having this instrument used for its highest purposes. You say, "The war excuses everything." That was the attitude of the hon. Member for South Dorset, and he attacked the statements of my hon. Friend without making any attempt to back up his attack. I notice that he made the fullest use that was personally possible to him of the opportunity that had been created by the hon. Member whom he condemned so roundly. He would not have had the opportunity of voicing his own views on the subject if my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston had not put down his Amendment and made the speech that he himself made. The hon. Member said, "All is excusable in war." As long as we have a totalitarian Parliament, that is all right. What is the difficulty there? He said that his party had a wireless station of its own.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I made no such claim.

Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman will read his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see. He said that so long as we had this National Government it was all right but if we reverted to the two party system we should have something else.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I said that we must have an alternative wireless network or there must be divorcement of the existing B.B.C. from governmental control—one or the other.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member knows that the former is impossible and says that if the wireless owned by the nation does not express his view, he must have one of his own. We are democrats; we do not speak with two voices, one at home and one for abroad, like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas).

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I take responsibility if I was misunderstood, but what I wanted to convey was that we can expect at home to, have a clash of opinions, but when we speak to occupied Europe we must express the policy of the country.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Maxton: It is no use saying "Hear, hear." When I want to get to know something of what the Germans are talking and thinking about, I do not listen to the English broadcasts from Germany; I get a friend of mine, who can translate German better than I can, to tell me what the Germans are saying to their own people. The hon. Member for Keighley is experienced enough to know that that is precisely what intelligent Germans do with our news. You cannot, in your home broadcasts, have political controversy and in foreign broadcasts say we are all one big happy family, because, if you do, any intelligent German will say that you are just a collection of crooks. That is precisely how we feel about the German people. On Saturday night I listened to our home service and the news of sabotage by workers from occupied countries who had been drafted to Germany. It was in the 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock and midnight news and described how two Frenchmen, working in a post office in Germany, made a mess of the parcels until the whole place was in a tangle and then afterwards thought of a better idea—re-addressing the parcels back to France. Imagine two Germans in an outlandish post office in the Highlands of Scotland doing that for one day. Would that impress intelligent people? There was another item of news about men being sent to break ice with pick-axes and going home with them with the points off, having supposedly broken them on the ice but in reality having broken them by placing them between paving stones. It is just rubbish. In our foreign propaganda we treat the French, Belgians and Dutch as if they were infants and their mentaliity was that of a five or six year old child.
I do not know whether there is an adviser on psychology in the B.B.C. or, if there is, what are his qualifications. If there is a psychologist there, let the Minister ask him whether he will be kind enough not to apply the psychology of the infant when he is weighing up how certain things will affect the minds of the


German people. Equally, do not let the B.B.C. think that people in this country, Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen, Irishmen, listening to the B.B.C., are cretins or mental defectives. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), whose speech I appreciated very much, made some reference to the good nature and tolerance of the people of this country. That is not their greatest quality. The greatest quality of the people of this country, as distinct from many other nations, is that they are a terribly sensible nation. The ordinary folk in this country are just as sensible and have as keen a sense of responsibility as the Members of this House. I say that you are trying, through the B.B.C., to treat them as undeveloped cretins and to limit their thinking within confines in which intelligent minds will not be confined, and in doing that you are not doing the best thing either for the future development of our own land or the ending of this world conflict in an intelligent way. Of that I am certain.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): In reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I doubt whether the B.B.C. has a psychologist on its staff, and I think that the hon. Member ought really to question the translator who provides him with information about the B.B.C.'s broadcasts to Germany. I think he is being misled by his translator, that the translator must be a very lazy man, and that he does not live up to the active, zealous, forceful personality of his master, the hon. Member for Bridgeton. If it would please the hon. Member, I should be more than willing to give him what I may call accredited translations of the broadcasts to Germany.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman is not attacking me, but he is attacking a friend whom I believe to be faithful, loyal, and competent. I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Bracken: I do not think the hon. Member's friend can have had much opportunity of listening to the vast amount of propaganda that is sent to Germany, I have seen very careful translations of all our propaganda to Germany, and I am afraid they do not fit in with the ideas of the hon. Member for Bridgeton's translator about the sort of stuff we send to Germany.

Mr. Maxton: I was not at that point referring to the translations of the propaganda we send from this country to Germany. I was talking about what Germany is sending to us, and to the German people.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman has made his point crystal clear. I am making no reflections on his translator. I thought the point was the other way round. As a matter of fact, the Debate does not deal with what the Germans say to us, but with the subject with which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is supposed to deal, which is our propaganda at home and abroad. The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked me to make a long speech, and within the limits of the clock I certainly intend to do so, and my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said that he hoped I would tell the House something about the B.B.C. Again I think a little instruction is desirable for some people, because the notions held in this highly intelligent House about the B.B.C. are really so remarkable that one wonders if anyone has ever taken the trouble to study the organisation of Broadcasting House.
No one can complain that this has not been a lively Debate and that the hon. Member for Shettleston has not provided us with a most lively topic, because every time you mention the B.B.C. you manage to create a certain intellectual commotion, partly due to the fact that some people, when they hate anything like the B.B.C., they treat it like a hair shirt and feel that they must listen in. So the B.B.C. is, of course, an obvious subject of debate. Like the Press, it covers the world. I remember the late Mr. C. P. Scott, editor of the "Manchester Guardian" for 57 years, who told me that rarely in his life did he meet anyone who did not feel that he could edit the "Manchester Guardian" better than Mr. C. P. Scott. The same thing applies to B.B.C. broadcasting. There will never be wanting a supply of persons unhampered by any technical knowledge who are quite certain that they could run the B.B.C. better than the men and women who have given over the better part of their lives to broadcasting and are responsible for it now. That is the valour of ignorance, and it is a very engaging quality. We have had plenty


of criticism, but we have also had plenty of discerning praise, and I ask the pardon of the House if once again I bore them by a wearisome repetition of the relations between the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. Most knowledgeable Members of the House, one would have thought, would understand these relations, but not at all. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) risked his reputation for infallibility by saying that I had as much power to direct the B.B.C. as any other Minister has to direct any other company, and that the Charter of the B.B.C. is Overridden by the Emergency Powers Act. The truth is that the Charter of the B.B.C. is not affected by the Emergency Powers Act except in this limited sense, that, in common with all other people, the B.B.C. is forbidden to publish information likely to be of value to the enemy. I have obtained a succinct opinion by an eminent lawyer on the relations of the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. I will read it. It might persuade Members that their notion about the part that the Ministry of Information plays is a rather mistaken one:
The Minister's powers under the Emergency Powers Act do not extend to giving any positive directions to the B.B.C. as to what it should do on its services. It does, in fact, possess these powers, but from other sources. Firstly, the Chairman of the B.B.C. gave an undertaking to the then Minister of Information in the first year of the war, that the B.B.C. would accept his direction in all matters pertaining to the war effort. Secondly, the fact that the B.B.C. now derives its finances directly from moneys voted by Parliament puts the Minister in a position to claim that the services for which he thus obtains Parliamentary money should be conducted in a manner what at any rate is generally satisfactory to himself.
This may be a curious arrangement, but it works well. It depends, of course, upon the good will and the good sense of the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. It is an arrangement that perhaps affords infinite opportunities for friction, but since I have been Minister of Information the only difficulty I have ever had with the Governors of the B.B.C. was about finance, because in a time of great emergency they spent a large sum of money. I think they spent it wisely, but they did not consult the Ministry of Information. That offended our bureaucratic pride. We rebuked them very sternly, and we believe the error will not occur again.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the lawyer he consulted?

Mr. Bracken: I will not advertise lawyers. Let us leave the squalid subject of finance, or of lawyers for that matter. The House should ask me, and nobody has asked me to-day, what use we made of the wide powers given to the Ministry when the Governors voluntarily agreed to accept our direction. The fact is that, apart from directly controlling the programmes on the European service, I have made no use of those powers, because, although I am uncertain of many things, I am willing to be dogmatic on one point, and that is that all wisdom does not reside in bureaucrats. It seemed to me that there was no, sense in setting up Government machinery to do the work which was already well done by ordinary citizens. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), in his extremely agreeable speech, suggested that the Ministry of Information should take over all the services of the B.B.C. I am absolutely opposed to that suggestion, and I will give my reasons. The first and most important is that the British public do not want Government edited news, whether it appears in the Press or the B.B.C. news bulletins.

Mr. Maxton: The Beveridge Report was a best seller.

Mr. Bracken: If the news bulletins of the B.B.C. were suspected of being given a Government slant, they would lose all character and be discounted in the ears of millions of listeners. Some people believe that the B.B.C. talks, discussions, and entertainment programmes could be improved. That was the burden of the song of the third party. I express no opinion on that point, but this I know, that they would be ruined if they were taken over by the Ministry of Information in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie.

Mr. Pickthorn: We have had many statements on this not very easy point. Does my right hon. Friend remember that his predecessor said that he was responsible for the principal political statements, news bulletins, and talks sent out by the B.B.C.? The hon. Gentleman who is now his assistant said in October, 1941:
The B.B.C. accepts the direction of the Ministry of Information in all matters affecting


the national effort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st October, 1941; col. 583, Vol. 374.]
—except the one worked by the P.W.E. What is the difference between that and what my right hon. Friend has just said?

Mr. Bracken: What is the relevance of this interruption? There is no difference between what I have read out and what my hon. Friend has quoted. I am not disclaiming any responsibility for my predecessor, but I say there is no difference in the interpretation in any way. The only guidance that the Ministry of Information has ever given to the Governors is to the effect that they should show enterprise and independence in controlling; their important programmes. I myself offered them the platitudinous advice that in the management of a monopoly moderation should always be their limit. I have not done so in order to divest myself of a difficult responsibility. I accept the fullest responsibility for justifying the B.B.C.'s doings in the House. In fact, I have nothing to do in the House in dealing with matters connected with the Ministry of Information. The whole of my time is given over to answering questions about the B.B.C. The Ministry of Information is constantly consulted by the Directors of the B.B.C., and we do everything we can to help them in their arduous work, but that is the limit of our relations with them.
The Government must take absolute responsibility for everything that is said on the European service. It is a vast and complicated organisation which I will try to describe. It broadcasts in no fewer than 27 languages. This represents 38½ hours of programme output every 24 hours. That means 140 bulletins, which is like producing 140 editions of a newspaper per day. The 38½ hours includes the 7 hours a day increase instituted since 29th March. There is to be a further extension during the year by which the total hours of broadcasting will be increased to 43 hours a day. The programmes are broadcast simultaneously on long, medium and short wave lengths, so that the total transmitter time taken up by the B.B.C. European services is approximately 300 hours a day. Except for a break of 1¾ hours, this service continues round the clock. I am giving these figures because they are of great importance. They show the effort put out by the B.B.C. In addition, the B.B.C. has

instituted a series of American relays, which are now relayed on medium waves by the B.B.C. for 3½ hours a day in 16, languages.
It is hard to tell how many listeners the B.B.C. may hope to have in Europe. I have been given the surprising figures of between 20,000,000 and 35,000,000 as the number who defy the Nazis and listen in to the B.B.C. at least once a day. I myself think that is an over-statement, but nevertheless the B.B.C. has a very considerable audience in Europe. It is fair to say that any big news story put out by the B.B.C. is known to most people in Western Europe, excluding Germany, within three hours of the time it is put out; but it is also true to say that in Germany itself, where it is estimated that the B.B.C. have well over 1,500,000 listeners, no big news story put out by the B.B.C. and suppressed by Dr. Goebbels fails to have currency throughout the length and breadth of Germany within a week. In Italy, of course, our audiences are greater, and in recent times I have had the most remarkable evidence of the effect of B.B.C. broadcasts to Italy. The Allied Governments in London speak to their own people over the B.B.C., the Czechs, Greeks, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, and Belgians having their own times for talks, which they themselves direct, and the Yugoslavs and the Free French have special facilities.
There is a very interesting part of the European services' work about which I want to tell the House, and that is the provision that the B.B.C. make for the clandestine newspapers in Europe. There are at least 500 of those newspapers, and they mainly depend upon the B.B.C. for their facts and guidance. Apart from a special Morse transmission which is designed to penetrate all jamming, special broadcasts at slow speed are provided for these newspapers in English, French and German. In the forests of Poland, in the mountains of Norway, in Yugoslavia and Greece, in the cellars of Western Europe, courageous men and women pick up and print those transmissions. It may be asked, "Do the Germans not do their best to jam them?" The answer is that they do. They try desperately to smother this voice of free Europe, but the B.B.C. has shown great wisdom and foresight in this matter. The power of their transmitters has been magnified to overcome this action, and with


the co-operation of listeners in various parts of Europe many devices have been produced for beating Germany.
I have given the House some rather essential information about the B.B.C. European services, but, hon. Members may say to me, while this shows impressive energy, is the output really good? Doubt has been cast on the output by some Members in their speeches to-day. How, for instance, someone may ask, is the B.B.C. European service received in France? There is a great pile of tributes from French men and women in the B.B.C. headquarters, and out of that immense pile I will select only one. This is what M. André Philippe, the Socialist Deputy, told the London Press after his escape from France last year:
If we have resistance in France, it is because of the B.B.C. Its influence has been tremendous, possibly one of the great influences in French history.
The Governments of all our European Allies can best testify to the part that the B.B.C.'s European Services are playing in maintaining and helping resistance in their countries. The best way of understanding the influence of those Services in enemy countries, such as Germany and Italy, is to listen to the constant warnings over the German radio of the crime of listening to the B.B.C. Several of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have recalled to my mind that the B.B.C. has earned this grim credit, that any German citizen who listens to it is liable to a sentence of death. Some people in this House might underestimate the influence of the B.B.C., but the Germans do not. When this war is over, a fascinating story will be written about the way the B.B.C. has invaded the minds of the Italians. In Colonel Stevens, who is the manager of the Italian broadcasts of our European service, Britain possesses one of the most skilful of broadcasting experts. His name is almost as well known in Italy as that of Gayda, who is supposed to be Mussolini's mouthpiece, or even "Woe, woe, Ansaldo." How has he achieved this notoriety? By the persistent attacks made upon his broadcasts by the Italian Government and their Press and radio lackeys; but I must confess that, in the last few months, Colonel Stevens has lost some of his notoriety, because the name "Montgomery" is eclipsing the name of "Stevens." I need hardly tell the House

how pleased Colonel Stevens is by this development. Let me sum up about the European news service. It is one of the best and liveliest radio organisations in the world. I wish we could find words adequate to praise the intelligence, energy and resourcefulness of its staff.
Before I deal with the many speeches made in this Debate, I want to say a few words about the sweeping terms of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Shettleston alleges that the B.B.C. has been conducted on totalitarian lines. A large number of my Conservative colleagues believe it is being unduly influenced by the Socialist Party. Who are the totalitarians among the Governors of the B.B.C.? Sir Allan Powell, who has had a long life of public service? If to be Mayor of Kensington shows that you have totalitarian leanings, then of course he may have to plead guilty. If you turn to the Vice-Chairman of the B.B.C., he has undergone great sacrifices in fighting for his country as an airman, and it is an insult to a man of his gallant quality to suggest that he has totalitarian leanings. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] Squadron-Leader Millis. Then there is Lady Bonham-Carter. Shades of Asquith I Totalitarian? Why, she is a Liberal by inheritance; and she has increased her inheritance, and her noble gifts of speech have been used for every cause that can help democracy or liberty. Then there is Mr. Arthur Mann, the greatest editorial critic in England of appeasement and of the totalitarian Powers. Before the hon. Member puts down this foul slander about being totalitarian, he ought to look through the files of the "Yorkshire Post." That would teach him not to describe Mr. Mann as totalitarian. No-one in this House would suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway, the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), or my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) should be included. We know them, and we know them not to be totalitarian. There is nothing totalitarian about the B.B.C. I think it is right to say that at times it seems slightly flocculent [Interruption], which shall be translated for the benefit of the hon. Member as being woolly.
Some of my Tory friends have complained to me about Socialists who they claim occupy key positions in the B.B.C. In support of their accusations, they complain


of the B.B.C. and the Beveridge Report. I listened, and the House listened, to the most entertaining speech from the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), and I wish to deal with this matter of the B.B.C. treatment of the Beveridge Report. The hon. Burgess, or the Senior Burgess or the hon. and Senior Burgess for Cambridge University seemed to have completely forgotten that every important British newspaper, Conservative, Liberal, and Socialist, gave an enormous amount of publicity to the Beveridge Report. Why? Because it was news. It is also a coincidence perhaps that every important newspaper in the world gave a great deal of space to the Beveridge Report, again not because there was some cunning man in the B.B.C., or some Socialist in the Ministry paying out sums to get the Beveridge Report printed. I beg the Senior Burgess to remember that in the B.B.C.'s summary of the Beveridge Report it was quite clearly stated that the Report had not been considered by the Government, and of course had not been adopted by the Government. That was made crystal clear to listeners.
Many people do not like the Beveridge Report, but that is no reason why the Report should not be given publicity. Publicity is the lifeblood of a democracy. I doubt whether there is any Member of Parliament who will challenge the freedom of the Press, because they know that the freedom of the Press is a right of the public and not of the Press. In this generation the genius of science has created a publicity instrument whose power of disseminating news is at least equal to that of the Press, and in the dissemination of news the freedom of the air is no less important than the freedom of the Press. If we will not stand for doctored news in the Press, neither will we stand for doctored news on the air, and as a person formerly connected with the newspapers I am glad it has fallen to my lot to fight for the B.B.C.'s right to publish news with the same freedom as the Press enjoys.
I know that the editors of the B.B.C.'s news bulletins are as fallible in their judgment of news value as are newspaper subeditors. I also know that the editors of the B.B.C.'s news bulletins never allow their personal preferences to influence their choice of news. Their task is more

difficult than that of a newspaper editor. They have much less space in which to give the news and often much less time to edit it. So long as I am Minister, I am resolutely determined that no outside influence shall affect the editors of the B.B.C.'s news bulletins in editing news according to their own judgment. I know this policy has sometimes annoyed the Conservative Party, the Socialist Party and the Liberal Party, and always annoys some Independents. Thus all the old die-hards of all parties say that there must be something very wrong with the B.B.C. May I, with great humility, suggest that this coalition of die-hards shows there must be something very right with the B.B.C.?
I have not very much time left, and I have a great deal to say. I have listened to many just and unjust criticisms of the B.B.C.'s failure, in its Home and Forces programmes, to give publicity to many worthy movements. I dare say that able men and women who desire to broadcast their ideas to the public may feel some grievance, but I would ask critics to re-member that the B.B.C.'s home wavelengths are heavily overcrowded. I was about to tell the House at considerable length what is happening in the B.B.C.'s home programmes just as I dealt with the European programmes, but I feel that as I am working against the clock, I have given the House a sufficient summary of the heavy responsibilities borne by the B.B.C.
Some of the things they have done deserve criticism, some of the things they have left undone expose them to blame; but of one thing I am quite satisfied. In all their talks they strive to be fair to all sections of the community; they have no political partisanships and no religious bias. Their hundreds of millions of listeners have good reason to know that the Governors of the B.B.C. have not abused their trust. Some cynical critics of the B.B.C. describe it as a Tower of Babel for tongues to wag in. The British are too fond of decrying their own institutions, and sometimes it does harm. Ignorant jeers at the work of the B.B.C. are a poor return for what it has done.
Security reasons prevent me from describing the difficulties that the B.B.C. have surmounted since the beginning of the war. Unlike the German wireless, the


B.B.C. has never been off the air. Its faithful servants have seen to that. I think that every fair-minded Member must acclaim the work of the staff at the B.B.C. Let us recognise that the B.B.C. is one of the greatest of our war assets. I am not here to apologise for the British Broadcasting Corporation: I am here to praise it—and it is time somebody did so. We have taken the B.B.C. too much for granted. We have never considered the ability and the sheer hard work which have enabled it to rise to the heights it has attained in this war. The B.B.C. has lightened the darkness of occupied Europe; it has strengthened the will of the populations there to resist. It has been a faithful servant to the British public and to the British Empire. It has earned our gratitude and the hatred of the totalitarian Powers. The hon. Member for Shettleston has at least rendered a good service by enabling the Minister of Information to make this inadequate recognition of the great services of the B.B.C.
A lot of points have been raised in this Debate, which I should like to answer. First, I should like once again to congratulate—although I do not agree with his argument—the senior Burgess for Cambridge University. He made one of the most entertaining speeches I have heard in this House for a long time. There were two maiden speeches of singular distinction; and what I liked very much was the arrival to the glory of the front bench of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie). It is a greater honour to sit by election on that front bench than to sit by nomination on this front bench. The speeches throughout the Debate have been altogether thoughtful. I do not say that a lot of new ideas have been put before the B.B.C. Governors to digest; but the Governors have a lot of respect for this

Division No. 16.
AYES.



Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Bowles, F. G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Albery, Sir Irving
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Debbie, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Burden, T. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Barstow, P. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Campbell, J. D. (Antrim)
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)


Beaumont Hubert (Batley)
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Beechman, N. A.
Channon, H.
Elliston, Captain G. S.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Charleton, H. C.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Critchley, A.
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Culverwell, C. T.
Fildes, Sir H.

House, and I feel sure that the ideas of the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset certainly deserve a great deal of consideration. If I were a Governor of the B.B.C., I would abolish the whole of the Brains Trust, and offer the position to the hon. Member for Bridgeton. That would be a great improvement. I think the Debate has done a great deal of good. If it has enabled me to inflict on the House this boring lecture on the work of the B.B.C., that is something.

The suggestion of the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset is well worth following up. The B.B.C. will welcome the presence at any time of any Member who wishes to inspect its organisation. It is most anxious to encourage Members of Parliament to broadcast, not necessarily on political topics; but, if I may put in a friendly word of warning, broadcasting does not consist merely of writing out a long document and then going to the mike and bellowing into it. There is a certain art in it. When the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) had broadcast 156 times, that looked like gross favouritism, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater is a professional broadcaster; being a Member of Parliament is only an incidental part of his life. I want to say again how grateful I am to Members for allowing me to inflict this long lecture on them. I hope that, in future, hon. Members will be able to persuade colleagues like the hon. Member for Shettleston against indulging in what I call most unworthy criticisms of the selfless men and women who have raised the B.B.C. to a position of greatness not held by any other broadcasting company in the world.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 3.

Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Poole, Captain C. C.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pym, L. R.


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Gates, Major E. E.
Kimball, Major L.
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Kirby, B. V.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Goldie, N. B.
Lawson, J. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Sexton, T. M.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Grenfell, D. R.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Snadden, W. McN.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Mabane, W.
Somerset, T.


Grimston, R. V.
McCallum, Major D.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Groves, T. E.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gruffydd, W. J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Guy, W. H.
Mathers, G.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thurtle, E.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Hicks, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Westwood, J.


Hill, Prof. A. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Holmes, J. S.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Hopkinson, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hughes, R. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Hume, Sir G. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Petherick, Major M.
Mr. Boulton and Captain




McEwen.




NOES.


Granville, E. L.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1943

CLASS I

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £329,560, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons."—[Note.—£155,000 has been voted, on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—[Major Sir James Edmondson], put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Sec-

tion I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, a copy of which was presented to this House on 6th April, be approved."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

BRISTOL AEROPLANE COMPANY (DEPARTMENTAL REPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

Mr. Culverwell: The subject on which I am about to speak is one that I have been trying to bring before the House since before last Christmas. My patience is at last rewarded, but I will not try the patience of the House for more than a few minutes. I do not think I can introduce the subject better than by quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th December, 1942, a Question that I put to the Minister of Information and the reply that I received:
MR. CULVERWELL asked the Minister of Information for what purpose and on whose authority has a confidential Report on the Bristol Aeroplane Company been prepared by officials of his Department; what is the nature of the material contained in this Report; and have Reports of a similar nature been compiled regarding other industrial undertakings?
Mr. BRACKEN: It is part of the duties of local officers of the Ministry of Information to


report on matters which are arousing public interest in their region. A confidential report of this kind from the Information Officer of the South Western Region, made nine months' ago, touched on matters concerning the Bristol Aeroplane Company which had attracted public attention, and this was referred to the Government Department concerned.
Mr. CBLVERWELL: Why is a Member of Parliament not allowed to see this Report, which, I understand, was unauthorised by my right hon. Friend?
Mr. BRACKEN: I do not authorise all the activities of the Ministry of Information; otherwise, there would be a serious bottleneck. But there are certain confidential jobs which the Ministry of Information does for Government Departments which cannot be made available to Members of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1942; cols. 1554–5, Vol. 385.]
I have not been allowed to see this document and I do not know what it contains, but I understand that the report to which the Minister refers is based on information contained in a large dossier consisting of reports, tittle-tattle, scandal and criticisms regarding the management and the conditions of work at the Bristol Aeroplane Company—chatter and talk which has been overheard in pubs and other places. I understand that the management have had no opportunity of seeing the report or replying to the criticisms that it contains. It is a purely one-sided report drawn from irresponsible sources. The first question I would like to ask is whether my information is correct and, if not, what is the nature of the report. I should also like to know on whose authority, and by whom, it was compiled, and for what purpose. In his reply to a supplementary question, the Minister said that there are certain confidential jobs which the Minister of Information does for Government Departments. I should like to know whether this document was compiled at the request of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, because that is what the reply seems to suggest.
In any case, whether it was compiled at the request of the Ministry of Aircraft Production or on the responsibility of the Ministry of Information, it does not seem to be the sort of work that the Ministry of Information should do at all. The Minister told me he had no knowledge of the dossier and since I brought the matter to his notice, he had given orders that further work of such a nature was to be stopped. I should like to know whether he does not agree that this is not the sort of work the Minister of In-

formation should undertake. I should also like an answer—which the Minister did not give—to my question whether there are any other reports of a similar nature in existence, or whether other reports regarding other undertakings are being compiled. I find it difficult to believe that the Bristol Aeroplane Company should be singled out for the particular attentions of the Ministry of Information. I should also like to know what use is being made of the report and of other reports which may have been compiled.
I do not understand why the Minister would not allow me to see the report. I cannot believe that a report of this nature, compiled by local officials, should contain matters so secret and confidential that they cannot be seen by a Member of Parliament. The matter raises important issues. As I say, I contend that this work should not be undertaken by the Ministry of Information at all, and the fact that the Minister told me he did not know it was being compiled and that he had stopped further work on it, suggests that there is a lack of definition of the functions of the Ministry and that officials have not been told where their duties begin and end. I believe it is most unfair to the managements of industrial undertakings that they should be subjected to this form of anonymous, irresponsible, and probably ill-informed criticism without any chance of replying to it or seeing what it contains. Owing to the fact that the matter has been deferred by force of circumstances since before Christmas, I am raising it at a time when the Minister of Aircraft Production is beginning to take over, on behalf of the Government, certain industrial undertakings. A report of this nature, anonymous and irresponsible, containing criticism of the management, in the hands of the Minister of Aircraft Production might certainly have an influence on his mind. I hope that it will not have a decisive influence, but it certainly might influence his mind in coming to a decision on whether or not to take over a firm. This is a matter of some importance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory reply.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I think that the hon. Member is raising this issue because he is under two wrong impressions. He does not really under-


stand what the functions of the Ministry of Information are and he obviously does not know the nature of the report to which he has referred. Among the many duties imposed upon the Ministry of Information is the duty of concerning itself with morale. We discovered through the report of our regional information officer that at Bristol morale was suffering because of adverse comments—I am not saying whether they were justified or not—which were circulating in the city as to slackness and faults of production in the aircraft factory to which the hon. Member has referred. We were informed that this was definitely having a bad effect upon the morale of the citizens of Bristol. It must be remembered that this took place about 12 months ago when Bristol had suffered severely from bombing and when morale might, probably, have been somewhat sensitive.
It was our duty, having been informed of this disturbance of morale, to find out the facts if we could. That is an obligation which is placed upon us. We instructed a reliable officer of the Ministry to find out the nature of these rumours and allegations. The report which we received was the report of this officer. In case the hon. Member is under any misapprehension on this point, I would make it clear that it was not a report upon the management of the Bristol Aircraft Company or the conditions obtaining in their factory. It was simply a report of what people in Bristol were saying about the conditions obtaining in that factory. That is a vital distinction to make. It was our duty to make this inquiry and, having got the report, it was our duty to pass it on to the proper authority without expressing any opinion as to whether or not the statements were well-founded. In this case, as it was a matter concerning aircraft production, we passed on the report—not suggesting that the statements in it were well-founded—to the regional officer of the Ministry of Aircraft Production for him to take whatever action he might think fit. That is all that happened.

Mr. Culverwell: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the sole duty of the Ministry of Information, when it hears that morale is bad, is to ascertain what is being said in the way of tittle-tattle and scandal? Having found out that there is tittle-tattle and scandal, suggestions of inefficiency and of workmen making toys in- 
stead of aeroplanes, and so on, did not the Ministry take any steps to counteract and to contradict those statements in public? It does not seem any good to compile a report of these scandals and keep it under your hat.

Mr. Thurtle: It would be grossly unfair to the company concerned to publish a report of that sort without taking it to the proper department which is competent to examine the allegations and find out whether there is any truth in them. That would be doing a real disservice to the firm concerned.

Mr. Culverwell: Surely if you are trying to improve morale the obvious thing is to get a report on the scandal that is being put round in publichouses, to submit it to the management and to ask whether there is any truth in it, and if there is not any truth in the statements that are being made, to say so publicly. Otherwise, the scandal goes on, the tittle-tattle does not stop, you do no good at all, and it is very unfair on the management, because they have not seen the report.

Mr. Thurtle: It was not our function to investigate the truth or otherwise of these allegations. It was the function of the appropriate body, the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Culverwell: Did they report back to you?

Mr. Thurtle: No, they did not report back to us. I do not know whether they took any action at all. I cannot tell what action they did take. To ascertain that, a Question would have to be addressed to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. All we were concerned to do, as a medium of information, when we discovered that these remarks were going about was to collect the remarks and submit them to the appropriate body for investigation of whether they were well-founded or not. I do not see that any obligation beyond that rested upon us. I was going on to deal with the point of whether the hon. Member ought or ought not to have been allowed to see this file.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Ministry of Information sent down an individual to ascertain certain facts in Bristol. Do I understand


that in ascertaining the facts about morale in Bristol he never, as part of his investigation, made any inquiry from the firm, whether they could throw any light on the subject?

Mr. Thurtle: Certainly not. It would have been a most improper thing for us, as the Ministry of Information, to approach the Bristol Aeroplane Company directly. We have a medium for that purpose which is the Ministry of Aircraft Production, so we took the proper and appropriate steps and sent this report to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, who were in touch with the firm and could therefore investigate the allegations which were made. In regard to the point about seeing the file, although my hon. Friend seems to think he was dealt with hardly in being refused access to this file an important principle is involved here. If the Ministry of Information have agents whose duty it is to send us confidential reports, and if they make their reports to us on the basis that they are confidential reports, I do not think access to those files ought to be given to anyone outside the Department, and that is the view which my right hon. Friend takes on that point.

Sir A. Southby: What the Parliamentary Secretary has said is really of some importance. I think I am within the memory of the House when I say that these local committees were originally set up to be channels by which news and information could be disseminated to the public in the event of the ordinary means of communication breaking down through enemy action.

Mr. Thurtle: This was not due to any action on the part of a local information committee. This was due to action by the responsible regional information officer, and it was an officer under him who carried out this investigation. The local information committee had nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Culverwell: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question whether this action was taken only in Bristol. It seems rather remarkable that the Bristol Aeroplane Company alone should receive the attentions of the Ministry of Information.

Mr. Thurtle: So far as my information goes we have not received from any of our

other areas a similar report of rumours about an aircraft factory which were having a bad effect upon morale. So far as I know this is a special, singular case.

Sir A. Southby: From what the Minister says it seems that the Ministry must have acted after some information was given to it, and that information could only have come from members of the local information committee. It may be that they did not actually carry out the investigation, but they must have submitted to a higher authority that, in their opinion, there was a necessity for an investigation. What we find is that the Ministry of Information, apart from its other functions, acts as a sort of secret service, compiles information from tattle and gossip that it hears, is under no obligation to tell the victims of that gossip of what they are accused and then submits that gossip in a report which is confidential, and to which access is denied the representatives in this House of the constituency concerned. Then the Ministry passes it on to another Government Department, which will or will not take action upon it and is under no obligation, apparently, to submit this report, which has been compiled as a result of secret investigations by a representative of the Ministry of Information, or to show it to the people who should be the first to see it and to know with what they are charged.
That may be right or wrong, but let the House and the country understand that that is what is going on; that investigators can go round this country and gather information from all sorts of places and channels, which may or may not be accurate, and then submit it to a Government Department as a highly secret and confidential document which is not allowed to be given to anybody else, and of the destination of which we have no knowledge. They do not do very much worse than that in Germany, and we had better realise that that is what is going on here: I have yet to learn that it is part of the functions of the Ministry of Information, as originally set up by this House, to become a sort of handmaiden to the ordinary Secret Service organisation in this country, and I am glad to hear that, as far as the Minister knows, there is no other case. I hope there will be no other case. I do not think it is part of the duty of the Minister of Information to investigate charges against individuals


or firms. This thing is capable of spreading and I hope that steps will be taken to curtail the activities of the people who go round compiling confidential reports, based on gossip which has been brought to their notice.

Sir Peter Bennett: I support what has just been said by the hon. Baronet. I heard of this rumour that went round. Anybody who has run an industrial organisation knows that such rumours do float round, and if it is possible for an investigation to be held without a prima facie case having been made, great damage will be done. As was said by the hon. Member in his opening remarks, it is known in Bristol that this investigation was made and, since nothing more has happened, there must be a slur on any company in that position. I should maintain this opinion regarding any organisation of mine if it were known that a Government inquiry, a "hush-hush" inquiry, had been held and nothing more had been done. I should like to know what procedure can be adopted in order that a firm in that position might clear themselves. If I go

round the clubs and the pubs if I like to get my scouts out and collect the, gossip I will find something about any organisation in this country and any Government Department. If it is known that this is being done, people talk about it and circulate it, and when nothing happens, they think that there is something wrong. There ought to be an opportunity of contradicting such rumours and I hope that some action will be taken to prevent this sort of thing growing.

Mr. Thurtle: I should like to reiterate what I said to the hon. and gallant Baronet. Whether he likes it or not, the function has been laid upon the Ministry of Information to concern itself with morale and we have, as he probably knows, a regional organisation. The duty of the regional officers is to report to us, as they do regularly, whether there is any special factor which, in their judgment——

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.